[The Heartland Plan and the same section in The Albany Plan Re-Visited offer solution to some of these problems. Ex. the article creating a federal university from which the federal government must get its statistics and facts solves some of the problems listed above as does the Article on federal citizenship. Another example is the section that requires the death penalty for official corruption.

Along with this essay, should be read Chittum’s Civil War Two and Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed.]

“They keynote speaker for the event was Victor Davis Hanson, a Hoover Institute (sic) fellow and author of Mexifornia, a book that romanticizes the California of old, when whites were a large majority of the state’s population. Davis Hanson (sic) talked about how in parts of California, you can go 10 miles in another direction and it ‘looks like you’re in a different country.’ Hanson also attacked California’s Democrats, saying:

We don’t want assimilation so we’re going to give you as much amnesty, sanctuary states, sanctuary cities, we’ll do whatever we can so you can remain tribal in your outlook. Your tribal racial and ethnic identity is essential, not irrelevant to your character.

Hanson also expounded upon the reconquista conspiracy theory promoted by anti-immigrant activists. It stems from the ‘Plan Espiritual de Aztlan,’ a document produced by MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) in the 1960s calling for Chicanos to reclaim land. It is not endorsed by any mainstream groups, but for nativists it serves as the genesis of a conspiracy theory claiming that Latinos want to take back American land for themselves.

Davis Hanson ended by saying, “The state is regressing into a Third-World country.” He also attacked undocumented immigrants, essentially claiming they are incapable of being law-abiding residents, stating, ‘When I came to the States, the first thing I did was break the law, so why would I follow the rules out of necessity now?’”

________________________
Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Southern Poverty Law Center,

A few preliminaries: Mexifornia, written nearly 15 years ago, was not a romance about “white” California, but a warning that if assimilation, intermarriage, and melting-pot integration continued to be caricatured and eroded, and if massive immigration continued to be illegal, non-diverse, and not based on ethnically blind meritocratic criteria, then one day California would be faced with ethnic polarization, given its various ethnic groups, large numbers of struggling newcomers without legality, English, or high school diplomas, and a state unable to meet its commitments to ensure first-rate public education, infrastructure, transportation, and safety for all its residents. I feel the book was prescient; if you disagree, find an argument instead of using the buzz word “white.”

You state that MEChA advocated “reclaiming” land for “Chicanos,” but then incoherently state that such a supposition is a “conspiracy theory claiming that Latinos want to take back American land for themselves.” Is it a fact or a “claim,” both or neither? And what are “mainstream groups,” given that MEChA for decades has had a sizable presence on most California and southwestern campuses and claims a number of prominent alumni.

When you write “essentially claiming” rather than quoting what I actually wrote in full, we know that “essentially” is a catalyst for more fiction to follow.

In general, I rarely have seen a puerile attack like this in which everything you have alleged is demonstrably false. Since there was an apparent video of my 30-minute speech on “Two Californias” (presented at a Los Angeles symposia on the crisis of California) about the inordinate wealth of the Pacific Coastal strip from La Jolla to Berkeley and the poverty of the state’s interior, you obviously choose not to quote from it accurately if much at all.

And it is easy to see why, since my argument did not serve your circular purposes of fabricating “hate” in turn to whip up hysterias in turn to raise money in turn to justify your comfortable existence in turn to fabricate more “hate.” In contrast, you found that reporting the truth—the lecture offered statistics on education, energy, health care, infrastructure, and taxes in suggesting that Californians are not receiving value for the inordinate taxes and regulations they endure, largely because of incompetent, one-party governance—would have been of utterly no value to your careerist and financial aims.

The lecture was not even on illegal immigration per se, but on the tripartite role of (a) Silicon Valley’s and coastal California’s vast wealth and (in the case of multibillion-dollar tech companies) corporate exemptions from traditional antitrust scrutiny, (b) the aggregate flight of nearly 4 million middle class Californians to no-tax or low-tax states, and (c) the aggregate effects of massive illegal immigration in which the traditional allegiance to melting pot assimilation, integration, and intermarriage has waned due to politics, sheer numbers, and illegality.

Let me detail your fabrications in the order you made them:

1) One truly can go 10 miles in one direction in California and see the radical change from affluence to dire poverty. And that abyss is, as I noted, because that 1/3 of all welfare recipients in the nation live in California, where 1/5 of the population lives below the poverty line, and a fourth of the residents were not born in the United States and in many cases do not have English facility or high school diplomas, critical in a competitive market economy.

I suggest the SPLC staff drive just 3 miles from Woodside or Atherton to Redwood City or East Palo Alto and see whether my assertion is flawed. The proposition rests, as I noted and you omitted, on the fact that California is both the wealthiest of states by a variety of measurements and also by some data the poorest. Or as I colloquially put it, California is a sort of weld of Massachusetts and Mississippi under single state governance.

I am writing this reply on an avenue in which there are numerous houses with inoperative trailers, shacks, and near lean-tos arranged around a single-family dwelling, compounds in which the poor live without proper zoning, in structures that do not meet building codes, and under conditions that would be empirically described as Third World.

Less than 4 miles away there are also 10,000 square-foot gated mansions. That dichotomy illustrates California culture, demography, and governance, in the medieval sense of two classes rather than the past three.

The contrast certainly does look like two different countries: again, in the sense that in the gated mansions English is spoken, there are all the accouterments of upward mobility, and gates keep others out; in the multifamily/trailer residences, Spanish only is spoken, residents are often here illegally, and poverty is endemic. The contrast reflects a vanishing middle class and a state politics designed to reward the connected hyper-wealthy and subsidize the poor and to ignore those in-between—which is why the latter may have fled in droves.

Your next assertion is a flat-out untruth: “Hanson also attacked California’s Democrats, saying: We don’t want assimilation so we’re going to give you as much amnesty, sanctuary states, sanctuary cities, we’ll do whatever we can so you can remain tribal in your outlook. Your tribal racial and ethnic identity is essential, not irrelevant to your character.”

I did not say what you are alleging, but made it very clear that the quote was a reflection of the mentality of the Democratic elite and the La Raza activist leadership. A simpleton in journalism can fathom that the collective “we” is not the person “I, Victor Hanson” but refers to progressive groups, as I carefully noted, who are not eager to see assimilation, integration, and intermarriage proceed in rapid fashion. Such a development might result in a fully integrated immigrant society (in the fashion of the 19th-century and early 20th-century trajectory of Italian-Americans), one that would be less helpful to Democratic tribal politics. Even with the quote out of context anyone can see through your childish effort to suggest the quote reflects my own sentiments rather than my views of the operating principles of progressive identity politics activists.

You allege: “Hanson also expounded upon the reconquistaconspiracy theory promoted by anti-immigrant activists. It stems from the “Plan Espiritual de Aztlan,” a document produced by MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) in the 1960s calling for Chicanos to reclaim land. It is not endorsed by any mainstream groups, but for nativists it serves as the genesis of a conspiracy theory claiming that Latinos want to take back American land for themselves.”

In fact, I did not discuss in detail Mexican nationals or Mexican-Americans seeking to “take back” land, nor did I even go into detail about the racist heritage of MEChA, which is becoming an embarrassment only because its racist sloganeering (e.g., “a bronze state for a bronze people” “everything for the race, nothing for the others”) was so egregious that it has been airbrushed off MEChA sites. What I did say was that La Raza was and is a racialist term (“the Race” [sc. Latin radix] and deliberately employed to resonate racial chauvinism—illustrative of an unfortunate effort to divide and polarize groups.

I added and you omitted that the 1960s rebirth of the term in popular usage was similar to Franco’s and Mussolini’s political use of Raza/Razza (Franco wrote a novel Raza), as a way of copy-catting Hitler’s racist use of the German Volk to denote race as the key criterion of citizenship and definition of one’s “essence.” Apparently, the National Council of La Raza (a key element of the Democratic Party coalition) was recently embarrassed into agreement. After the election of Donald Trump, it suddenly has changed its name to UnidosUS from the former “the race”, and that is a laudable improvement. (Note what Cesar Chavez once said about the La Raza movement: “Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro. We had a stupid guy who just wanted to play politics with the union, and he began to whip up La Raza against the white volunteers, and even had some of the farm workers and the pickets and the organizers hung up on la raza.”)

What do you mean when you write “nativist”? Someone who objects to racist terminology, and supports melting-pot integration and assimilation—in contrast to ethnic bigots like those in MEChA and La Raza groups who insist that their race defines their personas to the exclusion of others? What an Orwellian mindset, in which integration is defined as nativism.

You end your slander by more untruths: “Davis Hanson ended by saying, ‘The state is regressing into a Third-World country.’ He also attacked undocumented immigrants, essentially claiming they are incapable of being law-abiding residents, stating, ‘When I came to the States, the first thing I did was break the law, so why would I follow the rules out of necessity now?’”

Would you quote from the transcript of the speech? If you would, you will see that I ended with a call for unity, adding that there had to be more integration between poor and rich, and the restoration of a middle class, given that the state cannot do well when there is such an abyss between classes and a shortage of revenue to address long neglected infrastructure.

I did not attack undocumented immigrants, but said that the restoration of law (such as the end of illegal sanctuary cities and the enforcement of existing immigration statutes) is essential, yet would be difficult when millions of immigrants have not just entered the country illegally, but have done so as their first choice when arriving at a new homeland—a decision that the host de facto unfortunately overlooks or perhaps even rewards. When one breaks the laws without consequences, it insidiously erodes all laws and chaos is the inevitable result.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been in the news recently as a recipient of millions of dollars of grants from large corporations and movie stars, so I am not denying that fictions like the present one are effective in more or less leveraging money through hysteria. Yet your methods are not justified by your ends; the former are reprehensible and the latter self-centered. A growing number of Americans are learning about your group and discovering that when it cannot uncover hate, it invents it—and finds the ensuing smears and slanders quite profitable, resulting ironically in short-term lucre, but in the long-term continued diminution of your reputation. For a fair account of the meeting and speech, see http://citizensjournal.us/afa-focuses-decline-ca/

Davis Hanson

[In various venues, I have had people use the SPLC as a source. It is not. As Dr. Hanson refutes its nonsense, I must point out to all who use it, that, like the ACLU, it is a Leftist agenda agency and not a reliable, non-biased, source.

This is especially directed toward those who criticize without doing extensive research, or at the least going beyond wikipedia, a notoriously inaccurate source.]

The Fifth American War
July 18, 2017 11:05 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
by Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

The country is coming apart, and the advocates of radical egalitarianism are winning.

The wars between Trump, the media, the deep state, and the progressive party — replete with charges and counter-charges of scandal, collusion, and corruption — are merely symptoms of a much larger fundamental and growing divide between Americans that is reaching a dangerous climax.

On four prior occasions in American history the country nearly split apart, as seemingly irreconcilable cultural, economic, political, social, geographical, and demographic fault lines opened a path to hatred and violence.

During the Jacksonian Revolution of the 1830s, factions nearly ripped the country apart over whether the East Coast Founders’ establishment of a half-century would relinquish its monopoly of political power to reflect the new demographic realties of an expanding frontier — and its populist champions often deemed unfit for self-governance. For the most part, the Jacksonians won.

Three decades later the nation divided over slavery, prompting the most lethal war in American history to end it and force the defeated Confederate southern states back into the Union.

The Great Depression, and the establishment’s inept responses to it, left a quarter of the country unemployed for nearly a decade — hungry and desperate to expand government even if it entailed curtailing liberty in a way never envisioned by the Founders. The result was eventually the redefinition of freedom as the right of the individual to have his daily needs guaranteed by the state.

In the 1960s, the hippie movement — fueled by furor over the Vietnam War, civil-rights protests, and environmental activism — turned holistic in a fashion rarely seen before. A quarter of the country went “hip,” grooming, dressing, talking, and acting in a way that reflected their disdain for the silent majority of “straight” or “irrelevant” traditional America. The hipsters lost the battle (most eventually cut their hair and outgrew their paisley tops to join the rat race) but won the war — as the universities, media, foundations, Hollywood, arts, and entertainment now echo the values of 1969 rather than those that preceded it.

Now we are engaged in yet a fifth revolutionary divide, similar to, but often unlike, prior upheavals. The consequences of globalization, the growth of the deep state, changing demographics, open borders, the rise of a geographic apartheid between blue and red states, and the institutionalization of a permanent coastal political and culture elite — and the reaction to all that — are tearing apart the country.

Despite its 21st-century veneer, the nature of the divide is often over ancient questions of politics and society.

The Deep State
Technological advances, the entrance of a billion Chinese into the global work force, and the huge growth in the administrative entitlement state have redefined material want. The poor today have access to appurtenances undreamed of just five decades ago by the upper middle classes: one or two dependable cars, big-screen televisions, designer sneakers and jeans, and an array of appliances from air conditioning to microwave ovens. The rub is not that a Kia has no stereo system but that it does not have the same model that’s in the rich man’s Lexus. Inequality does not mean starvation: Obesity is now a national epidemic among the nation’s poor; one in four Californians admitted for any reason to a hospital is found to suffer from diabetes or similar high-blood-sugar maladies due largely to an unhealthy diet and lifestyle choices.

In political terms, the conflict hinges on whether the powers of entrenched government will be used to ensure a rough equality of result — at the expense of personal liberty and free will. The old argument that a wealthy entrepreneurial class, if left free of burdensome and unnecessary government restrictions to create wealth, will enrich all Americans, is now largely discredited. Or rather it is stranger than that. The hyper wealthy — a Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, or Warren Buffett — by brilliant marketing and opportunistic politics are mostly immune from government audit, and from robber-baron and antitrust backlash. Instead, redistributive ire is aimed at the upper middle class, which lacks the influence and romance of the extremely wealthy and is shrinking because of higher taxes, ever-increasing regulations, and globalized trade.
It does not matter that the ossified European social model does not work and leads to collective decline in the standard of living. The world knows that from seeing the implosion of Venezuela and Cuba, or the gradual decline of the EU and the wreckage of its Mediterranean members, or the plight of blue states such as Illinois and California. Instead, it is the near-religious idea of egalitarianism that counts; on the global stage, it has all but won the war against liberty. We are all creatures of the Animal Farm barnyard now.

Indeed, if today’s student actually read Orwell’s short allegorical novel (perhaps unlikely because it was written by a white male heterosexual), he would miss the message and instead probably approve of the various machinations of the zealot pig Napoleon to do whatever he deemed necessary to end the old regime, even if it meant re-creating it under a new correct veneer.

The conservative effort to roll back the entitlement, bureaucratic, and redistributionist state has so far mostly failed. That today, coming off sequestration, we are on target to run up a $700 billion annual deficit, on top of a $20 trillion national debt, goes largely unnoticed. Eighteen trillion dollars in national debt later, Ronald Reagan’s idea of cutting taxes to “starve the beast’ of federal spending has been superseded by “gorge the beast” to ensure that taxes rise on the upper classes. To the degree that there is a residual war over entitlements, it is not over cutting back such unsustainable programs, but instead about modestly pruning the level of annual increases.

The government necessary to ensure such continued state borrowing and spending is now nearly autonomous and transcends politics — and is eager to use its formidable powers against any who threaten it.

Identity Politics
On a second front, there is a veritable civil war over race, ethnicity, gender, and identity. Massive immigration, the rise of opportunistic identity politics, and a new tribalism have replaced the old melting pot of assimilation, integration, and intermarriage with salad-bowl separatism. The only obstacle to the tribal state is that there may soon be too many victims with too many claims on too few oppressors.

There are too many incentives — from political spoils and university admissions, to government employment and popular cultural acceptance — to identify with one’s tribe rather than simply as an American.

The problems with such tribal fissuring are threefold. One, the rhetorical disdain for traditional majority culture and values operates in a landscape in which the critic adopts the tropes and lifestyles of all that he demonizes. From what traditions do the Claremont or Berkeley students believe their rights of protest derive? Where do they get their expectations of clean campus water or capital to drop out of the economy for four years of college? Was the technology behind the iPhone a result of a patriarchal, nativist, male culture — and does that therefore make the device tainted and unsuitable for use?

Second, if red-state, traditional America is constantly assaulted with various charges of –isms and —ologies, why would any foreigner wish to enter the United States, or upon entering live in such wretched places as red-state Arizona, Texas, Florida, or Utah? Is schizophrenia thus required: Concretely use and enjoy the legacies of a demonized culture while abstractly damning them?

Third, when tribalism supersedes the individual, then all criteria of merit, character, and ethics recede into identity: Race, gender, and ethnicity replace merit and we begin to have black NASA engineers, white nuclear-plant operators, or brown jet pilots rather than missiles, power, and flights that are overseen and operated by the most skilled among us. When a society operates on a tribal basis — we see it often in Africa and the Middle East — everything from tap water to IVs are a luxury.

In short, will America remain a multiracial nation united in one culture in which superficial physical appearance becomes largely irrelevant (and indeed one’s racial DNA pedigree soon becomes almost undefinable), or will it go the tribal route that ultimately leads to something like the Balkans, Rwanda, Iraq — or Evergreen State, Ferguson, and Middlebury?

Finally, there is a growing rejection of the founding principles of the United States, its traditional Christian-based values, and the old idea of American exceptionalism. Federalism and the idea of a republic, after all, do not necessarily lead to radical egalitarianism or a society of absolute equals. Yet the modern progressive mind is wedded to two principles: that 51 percent of the population at any given moment should have the final say in governance only if it reflects correct progressive principles; and if the population is “fooled” and votes incorrectly, then an elite in government, the courts, and the media will intervene to set in place what hoi polloi should have done to properly advance the correct agendas.

In practical terms, will universities still teach the inductive method and fact-based knowledge, or deductive social activism? Will our past be seen as noble and at times tragic, or melodramatically as exploitive? And will progressives abide by occasional political setbacks in elections, the courts, and popular referenda, or seek to subvert those institutions as unacceptable impediments to their radically egalitarian agendas?

So who is winning this fifth American conflict, and why?

Progressivism.
It has an insidious appeal to human nature, offering contexts and arguments for dependency — which is defined as the consequence of some sort of prior unethical exploitation (rather than chance, bad luck, or personal pathology, perhaps in addition to exploitation) and therefore deserving of proper recompense. Progressivism promises a transcendence over nature’s limitations through superior education, proper training, and correct reasoning, as if poverty, illness, and inequality were not innate to human nature but results of selfishness and ignorance and so rather easily remedied. It confuses technological progress with a credo that human nature itself evolves in predictably progressive ways, thereby supposedly making obsolete institutions and protocols (from the Constitution itself to ancient ideas such as deterrence) that were once time-honored.

Virtue-signaling among elites who are critical of the very protocols that led to their own success serves as a psychological mechanism to alleviate guilt about privilege. And when an elite deprecates its own culture, the ripple effects widen upon reaching the masses. The combination of market capitalism and personal freedom can enervate a population, misleading people into thinking that their bounty is unending and natural, and giving them the latitude for cynicism, skepticism, and nihilism about the sources of their privilege. In the West, a narcissism follows that oddly manifests itself in thinking that human sins are almost exclusively Westerners’ own.

These age-old observations often led to depressions among Western philosophers who grasped the Western paradox that the success of market capitalism and constitutional government might undermine the ancient virtues essential to their continuance.

In this latest arena of civil dissent, Donald Trump, the renegade liberal and most unlikely traditionalist, squares off against the elite that despises his very being not only for reasons of class and culture, but mostly for attempting to restore a traditional regime of citizenship, individualism, assimilation, territorial sovereignty, recognized borders, strong defense, deterrence abroad, and free-market capitalism.

#3 offers a section for a complete reorganization of the Federal Government and a section, with underlying reasons as to why & how, on a new constitution. It also, for those recalcitrants opposed to a new constitution but willing to amend the current one, a section of amendments and even one of proposed legislation.]

May 10, 2017

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress (no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One Thousan Eight Hundred and Eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article) (no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate).

Texas has become the 11th State requesting a Constitutional Convention.

Those who have followed my posts, know that the 1787 Constitution has been nullified for over 100 years. The nullification took place through improper Supreme Court rulings, the failure of both the Executive Branch and the Legislature to fulfil their Constitutional obligations and responsibilities. The use of the regulatory process to pass to the Civil Service the duties of both branches in order to avoid the politically inconvenient has led to our current set of crises. The open borders, illegal legalization of drugs, murdering of police, abuse of taxes, theft from taxpayers for unconstitutional purposes, and on and on, are as do to taxpayer ignorance as politicians’ apostacy.

In 1787, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, took numerous templates for consideration. At the convention, Alexander Hamilton, to his enemies’ delight, even proposed a Monarchy so that the convention could cover all workable government forms in their debates.

There are numerous books available to us, which cover this period extensively. I recommend Edwin Meese, III’s “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution”, and that you visit Brion McClanahan’s website, http://www.brionmcclanahan.com and pick from his numerous works, I suggest starting with his “The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution”.

As much as I dislike Mark Levin, his American Trilogy in which he explains, quite accurately and comprehensively, the origins of the 1787 constitution, where it was felled, and what can be done about it, including his 27 recommended amendments, is another work I recommend.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has several works I recommend and for the same reasons.

“The Albany Plan Re-Visited”, has a template that includes variations and reasons for them including an Article on aggregation, and how weighted voting may be a much better form of direct representation than any proffered so far. ( http://www.bn.com/ebooks ).

Why?

With Texas now on board for an Article V Constitutional Convention, we are now 1/3 of the way there. YOU may soon be asked to vote for delegates from your state to attend and decide on what our next Federal government will have power to do and not do.

In the XVIIIth Century, politics was a major form of entertainment for the populace. Currently, VR, XBOX, & Playstation are the major forms of entertainment. In order for us to pick the correct delegates to such a convention, we must know of the various forms of governments and the templates for constitutions. Waiting until the last minute to educate ourselves on the possibilities, is a losing strategy.

Learn the templates, learn the variations, learn the possibilities available to us that will free all of us, and allow all of us to keep our wealth, and not have it taken at gun point and sent to foreign and domestic tyrants.

How to Blow an Election — in Five Easy Steps
May 9, 2017 12:27 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Counting the ways, and Comey is not among them.

Hillary Clinton recently took “full responsibility” for her 2016 loss. Only she didn’t. Instead of explaining what the historian Thucydides once called the “truest causes” (aitiai), she went on to list at least three pretexts (prophases) for her defeat: sexism, FBI director James Comey, and the purported Russian hacking of her unsecured e-mail server and the John Podesta e-mail trove.

Clinton’s accusations also raise the larger question of why a presidential candidate wins or loses an election.

In general, there seem to be five hinges of fate: personality, positions on the issues, the general political atmosphere of the era, the quality of the campaign, and sudden and unforeseen outside events such as depression, scandal, or war. Even a biased media or lots of money pales in comparison.

The Pretexts
We can fairly dismiss Clinton’s pretexts.

Take sexism. Hillary Clinton found her sex an advantage in being elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. For a generation, among the most powerful and successful figures in U.S. politics were three progressive, multimillionaire, Bay Area women who, in a most non-diverse fashion, lived within 50 miles of one another: Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi.

From 1997 to 2013 women of both parties were in charge of U.S. foreign policy as secretary of state, for twelve out of 16 years. One could make the argument that “the first female president” was an advantageous campaigning point, not a drawback; it was certainly designed to bookend Barack Obama’s successful trumpeting of being the first African-American president.

Blaming a deer-in-the-headlights FBI director James Comey is equally problematic. His passive-aggressive pronouncements irrationally first exonerated her, then did not, then did again. Faulting the FBI for her own likely felonious behavior of sending and receiving classified communications on an unsecured server (or of Bill Clinton’s trying to leverage Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac) is sort of like blaming the defeat at Pearl Harbor on the Japanese — true, but hardly the whole story given America’s responsibility for its own unpreparedness.

In similar fashion, had Donald Trump lost, he might have faulted the Washington Post for airing the decade-old Access Hollywood tape that nearly destroyed his campaign, as if the clear ill will and partisanship of Jeff Bezos’s Post were not empowered by Trump’s own private, hot-mic — but nonetheless crude — statements. The Germans claimed that harsh snows and the last-minute campaign in the Balkans had delayed and thus doomed their 1941 Russian offensive, as if the Red Army did not have a say or as if Germans were a tropical people.

As far as the Russians, they are Russians — always seeking to throw wrenches into the gears of U.S. elections. The Republicans claimed that their firewalls kept the Russians out of RNC e-mail; John Podesta using “password” for his password invited them in. And, of course, no one forced Washington journalists to collude through e-mail with the Clinton campaign, and no one ordered Hillary to jerry-rig a home-brewed server. The Russian-collusion bogeyman was probably as effective a campaign prop for Clinton as the supposed Russian-inspired e-mail revelations were for Trump.

1. McMurphy Trumps Nurse Ratched
More likely, Clinton lost the key, Rust Belt states that swung the electoral vote to Trump for our five classic reasons.

Her personality, in far different ways, was as polarizing as Trump’s. But Trump was far better as a TV showman, given his long stint on reality TV. Hillary’s voice, facial expressions, and comportment were not winning. Even on the rare occasions that she told the truth, she seemed more insincere than Trump, even when he was spinning a yarn.

Trump’s image as a bad boy was less damaging than Hillary’s as a scold. Both are roughly the same age and, to the eye, not in the best of shape, but Trump displayed an almost animal energy while Clinton often appeared frail, worn, and on occasion ill on the stump. In Ken Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the reader sympathizes with the pseudo-patient and con Randle McMurphy, who does everything haywire, rather than “Big Nurse” Mildred Ratched, who does everything by the book; the former was at least undeniably alive, the latter only ostensibly so.

2. Against Something Is Not For Something
Second, Hillary Clinton had no real sincere position on any issue other than a desire to stay in public office for nearly a quarter-century, and her willingness to extend the eight years of the Obama agenda — an agenda that had never achieved 2 percent economic growth and that saw record labor non-participation, a doubling of the national debt to $20 trillion, and a world in chaos abroad.

Once Obama got wise in January 2016 that he was the most popular when he was not seen or heard, he dropped out of sight and kept silent. Meanwhile, 17 Republicans along with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton hogged the national spotlight and tore one another apart. Through it all, Obama’s eight-year-long stream of dismal popularity ratings gradually improved. But his newfound transient popularity did not mean that most Americans liked Obama’s policies or judged them as successful.

The result was that Hillary played a losing 1968 Hubert Humphrey to Obama’s lame-duck Lyndon Johnson — she risked an occasionally meek nip on the administration’s ankles but was otherwise silent about her own positions to the extent they even existed. In a year when people wanted a change from the prior eight years, Clinton offered none. “I am a woman” and “Trump is a monster” were not serious campaign issues, but they sum up the totality of why Clinton wished Americans to vote for her. Most still did, but not in the key states where Obamism had wrought disaster.

3. Populists Bite Back
Third, voters had, once again, tired of Washington politics. The aura of 2016 was “drain the swamp” change. A septuagenarian socialist, who was not a Democrat, nonetheless almost won the Democratic primary on the theme that a Washington insider Bernie Sanders was at least not a Clintonian apparatchik mired in quid-pro quo beltway payola.

In a normal year, a sober and judicious Jeb Bush, or a proven competent governor such as Scott Walker, or a charismatic ascendant such as Marco Rubio would have won the Republican nomination.

But not in 2016, when voters wearied of sermons about their ethical shortcomings delivered by liberal and conservative grandees who were not subject to the consequences of their own ideologies — whether on trade, globalization, illegal immigration, health care, the budget, or foreign policy. Many voters saw Hillary, accurately, as the epitome of self-interested professional politics, leading always to personal enrichment. Trump’s supposed vulgarity and crudity only enhanced his image as a reckless (but nonetheless defiant) Samson determined to pull down the supporting pillars of the rotten Washington temple — even if the wreckage fell on himself, he’d ensure rubble on everyone else as well. Hillary was the EU; Trump was Brexit.

4. Super Bowl III: The Colts Upset the Jets
Fourth, arrogance, ignorance, and sloth are a fatal trifecta—sort of like the conditions that led the Baltimore Colts to be disastrously upset by the New York Jets in Super Bowl III. The Colts’ tried and true and careful Johnny Unitas proved no match for erratic and flamboyant Joe Namath.

Haughtiness, insularity, and laziness characterized the conduct of the Clinton campaign. Even a novice outsider could see that Obama’s successful electoral matrix — record minority turnout and bloc voting, coupled with the drop-off in turnout by a disengaged white working middle class (tired both of left-wing identity politics and Republican bluestocking elitism) — was not going to be transferrable to an off-putting 69-year-old, white multimillionaire.

Not only did Hillary Clinton lack Obama’s youthful vigor and mellifluousness; she also seemed at times geriatric, snarky, and screechy. The result was that she did not win the minority vote at the levels she needed. Further, she galvanized the supposedly ossified and irrelevant white working classes to finally come out and vote, in their own bloc fashion, against her. Obama had guaranteed her his downside but never delivered his upside.

Clinton’s only chance to make up for missing identity-politics voters by appealing to the working classes of the Midwest was to replay her 2008 Annie Oakley Democratic-primary role — by drinking boilermakers in Milwaukee, or bowling in Scranton, or reminiscing about shooting guns as young gal. But eight years ago, the Democratic party was still aw-shucks Bill Clinton’s. In 2016, it was captive to the identity-politics polarization so effectively deployed, in community-organizer style, by Barack Obama.

So instead Clinton doubled down on the tired theme that Rust Belt losers needed to shape up and get with the globalized progressive project and a demography-is-destiny new America. Obama had deprecated Pennsylvanians as has-beens clinging to their Bibles and guns; Hillary updated them, adding “half of Trump’s supporters” as irredeemables and deplorables. Miners were toxic losers who needed to learn how to build solar panels rather than mine coal. In contrast, Trump called them “our miners.”

She made her disdain concrete by never campaigning in Wisconsin and only sporadically visiting the Blue Wall states eastward to the Carolinas. And she was convinced that demography had doomed the white working classes and empowered Latinos and blacks in red states such as Arizona and Georgia. Clinton’s inept campaign aimed, then, not just at a win (which was attainable by nonstop populist barnstorming and message massaging in the Rust Belt) but, greedily, at a “mandate” that was impossible, given minority-vote falloff and Democratic estrangement from the working classes. Apparently, no one told the campaign that open borders were not a popular national issue, and that Democrats could not win Texas even with Latino bloc voting, and that they could do so in deep-blue California but without any electoral significance.

Clinton surrounded herself with Pajama Boy whizz kids who looked and sounded as if they were on vacation from DuPont Circle in D.C., or Manhattan’s Upper West Side (and who appeared as Stanley and Livingston explorers to the natives of southern Michigan or eastern Pennsylvania). Meanwhile, Trump advisers, such as Kelly Ann Conway and Steven Bannon, acted and talked like they had been around the proverbial American block.

Hillary had the money edge, all the establishment endorsements, a united Democratic party, and a captive toadyish media. Yet she still lost to an outspent Trump, who had never run for a single public office and whose own party and media elite damned him as much as they did his enemies. His victory will remain one of the most amazing campaign outcome in U.S. election history — especially in a postmodern electronic age in which “analytics” and “data” are supposed to make human capriciousness a relic of the past.

5. From Clinton Cash to Non-secure E-mail
In 2016, there was nothing comparable to the unpopular Iraq War or the frightening 2008 financial meltdown that had propelled Obama to the White House. But there was a succession of scandals — almost all Clinton’s — that confirmed the image that she was not just unethical, but predictably so.

Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash is underappreciated for its effect on the campaign. Through painstaking research, it tied together all the strands of Clinton nefariousness: the Clinton Foundation as an excuse to hire political flunkies and provide free jet travel; the quid pro quo State Department nods to those who hired Bill Clinton to speak; and corruption under Hillary Clinton, from cellphone concessions in Haiti to North American uranium sales to Russian interests.

Add to the Clinton sleaze Hillary’s unsecured server and communications of classified material, the creepy New York and Washington careerists who turned up in the Podesta archives, and the political rigging that warped the conduct of the Democratic National Committee.

The result was that Hillary could no longer play the role of the “good” Clinton who “put up” with her husband’s “good ole boy” sleaze. Her new image was that of an equal partner in crime — or perhaps even a godmother who used the capo Bill as muscle. In comparison, Trump steaks, Trump University, Trump taxes, and Trump ties were old-fashioned American hucksterism, but with one important difference: Trump’s excesses were a private person’s; Clinton’s were those of a public servant.

The correct exegesis for losing in 2016 should explain the Democratic strategy for winning in 2020: Run a vigorous, mellifluent, and sympathetic candidate; put forth new solutions to old problems; empathize with noncoastal America and camp out there, too; run a campaign as if it were in danger of losing rather than already past the finish line; and prune away Washington, D.C., hangers-on, with their acceptance of corruption as the new normal.

Or instead maybe Democrats can nominate another 69-year-old, multimillionaire female political insider who will run an identity-politics campaign on her gender, on the fact that she is not the monstrous Donald Trump — and on the premise that all the world, from the FBI to the Russians, are out to get her.

[One of many reasons that I like Dr. Hanson’s posts, is his adherence to practical history. One may take out all personal content, and then be able to use this, as so many of his columns, as a guide to “how to” do something. If we take his posts analyzing the 2016 election, remove the personality components, we have a book that explains both how to win an election and how to lose an election.

The same may be said of his columns on social issues. His analytical approach allows us to see how to run a government properly, or not, through is writings on the conditions in California.]

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s Statement At The UN And A major Change That Must Take Place

By Capt Joseph R. John, March 28, 2017: Op Ed # 342

If you click on the below listed link, you will be able to view President Donald J. Trump’s UN Ambassador, Niki Haley make a short statement at the UN. Israel recently entered into a defensive alliance with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.

The defensive alliance was prompted by the Obama administrations very dangerous Nuclear Weapons Agreement with Iran, which is allowing Iran to develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) that will be able to strike the US, with a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration allowed them to develop.

After 8 years, the United States has a frank & responsible UN Ambassador who will ensure that Israel is treated in the same manner as every other member nation!

The US Congress should terminate all funding for the UN Middle East and African “Muslin Only” Refugee & Resettlement Program, controlled by representatives from 43 majority Muslim member nations and members of the Muslim Brotherhood in leadership positions in the UN. The UN Refugee & Resettlement Program has been discriminating against 300,000 Middle East Syrian and Assyrian Christian Refugees being housed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency for the last 8 years. That UN Program, funded by the Obama administration, has been involved in an ongoing violation of the US Constitutions’ “Freedom of Religion” and US Federal Laws.

For the last 8 years, hundreds of thousands of Middle East Christians have been murdered by ISIS, Al Q’ieda, and the Muslim Brotherhood genocide. They have been crucified, burned alive, beheaded, drowned in cages, shot in the back of the head, throw to their deaths from the roofs of tall buildings, buried alive, their children have been cut in half, their female children &women of all ages have been raped, and they have been sold into slavery.

Yet the Muslim UN Administrators of UN Refugee Relief & Resettlement Program refused to allow any of the 300,000 Middle East Christians refugees being housed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency from entering the US thru the UN’s corrupt program, which has been funded for 8 years, to the tune of billions of US taxpayer dollars, by the Obama administration.

At the same time, Obama accepted over 900,000 Middle East Muslim Refugees thru the corrupt UN Refugee Relief & Resettlement Program. Then they were resettled in 187 cities across the nation, while refusing to allow the FBI to interview them, to determine if they have terrorist ties, while at the same time, preventing local, county, state, and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies from knowing where those un-vetted Muslim refugees were resettled.

Despite a petitions by 56 US Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, who pleaded with the Obama administration to provide Syrian and Assyrian Christians suffering genocide, with self-defensive small arms weapons, so they could protect their families from the on-going genocide, Obama refused to authorize the delivery of small arms weapons for self-defense.

The net result of the corrupt UN Refugee & Relief Resettlement Program is that there have been 82 terrorist incidents and attacks on Americans in the US over the last 8 years, killing hundreds of Americans citizens, listed in the attachment. Those attacks, for the last 8 years, were covered up by the left of center liberal media establishment, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were in senior appointive positions in The White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, and in DHS. That corrupt UN Refugee Resettlement Program, which violated the US Constitution and US Federal Laws, must be defunded by Congress.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

Itemized below are 82 of the 192 Radical Islamic Terrorists attacks on US soil perpetrated since 9/11, by Jihadist, by Muslim refugees, by descendants of Muslim refugees, by Islamists who were radicalized thru the Internet, or Radical Islamic Terrorists who traveled to train with ISIS in Syria. The Radical Islamic Terrorist’s countries of origins were primarily the countries of Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, and Libya; except for Iran, those countries had little control over the identity of terrorists operating and training within their countries.

After each Radical Islamic Terrorist instigated attack, the identity of the attackers were covered up by the Obama administration for 8 years, working in concert with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the left of center liberal media establishment to mislead Americans of the 192 terrorist attacks. They used politically correct language to cover up the identity of the Radical Islamic Terrorists who repeatedly murdered Americans. It was a continuing conspiracy that resulted in the injury and murder of hundreds of American citizens and the cover up undermined the National Security of the United States!

The foreign nationals listed below executed 80 Radical Islamic Terrorists attacks against American citizens in the above listed US cities during the 8 years of the Obama administration, and is a partial list of the 192 Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks perpetrated in US cities by Radical Islamic Terrorists since 9/11:

Bilal Abood was a translator who came here on an Special Immigration Visa for Iraqi nationals who provided services for American Forces. He even briefly joined the US Army. On the surface he was exactly the sort of Iraqi Refugee that the media likes to depict as the ideal immigrant, but Abood was also a member of ISIS. When he was arrested, he insisted “America was the enemy of Allah”.
Jasim Mohammed Hasin Ramadon and Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori came to this country with Special Immigration Visas. Then Ramadon, Juboori and three other Iraqi refugees brutally assaulted a 53-year-old Colorado Springs woman. When the police arrived at the scene of the Iraqi Refugee sexual assault, they found blood splattered on the walls. The Iraqi Refugee rapists lured in their victim by complaining about how hard it was living in America and being called terrorists. The victim, a night nurse, took pity on them because they reminded her of her son. By the time the Iraqi Refugees were done, she had been violated and left near death.
Abdullatif Ali Aldosary an Iraqi Refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program set off a bomb outside a Social Security office in Phoenix, Arizona. The authorities found plenty of bomb making materials in his home. He was also accused of a murder that had taken place a few days before the bombing and had previously been sent to jail for harassment. His case had been put on hold for “terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility”, but he still couldn’t be deported.
On March 3, 2017 Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan came here from Iraq as a refugee thru the UN Refugee Program. When the FBI searched his Houston apartment, agents found an ISIS flag. Hardan had been planning to leave bombs in the trash cans of two Houston malls. He had contemplated an attack on the Grand Prairie military base in Texas.
On February 14, 2017, 35 year old Adam Nauveed Hyat of Pakistani descent and a former Marine wrote “Explosives” on a closet door mirror in a Denver, CO Sheraton Downtown Hotel, leading police to find pipe bombs after running up a bill of $10,000 at the hotel; guests were removed from the hotel while the pipe bombs were defused. After flying to Los Angeles on February 17th, Hyat was tracked down and arrested, armed with knives, near the Los Angeles Airport. Adam’s father, Sultan Hyat, said his son has mental problems.
On January 31, 2017, 29 year old Ahmad Bahjat of New Haven, an Iraqi Refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program, posing as Uber Driver, was arrested for raping a woman. The woman had left a New Haven bar and walked to a parking area designated for Uber and taxi drivers, according to Hamden Police who arrested him. Bahjat pretended to be an Uber driver and the woman got into his car, believing he was the Uber driver.
On November 28, 2016, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a 18 year old Somali refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program drove his car into a crowd students on the campus of Ohio State University, then got out of his car and attacked students with a butcher knife injuring 11.
On September 19, 2016 Ahmed Khan Rahimi, a 28 year old Afghani refugee, who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to train as a Radical Islamic Terrorist and set off a bomb in the Chelsea District of Manhattan, NY. The explosion injured 29 people; he was arrested after a shootout with Police Officers in Linden, New Jersey, where he wounded two police officers. Ahmed was charged with 5 counts of murder. Earlier in the day, he set off a pipe bomb in Seaside Park, New Jersey; five other bombs were found at his residence.
On September 17, 2016 Dar Ahmed Adnan, a Somali refugee who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program perpetrated a knife attack on 9 shoppers at the St Cloud Crossroads Mall in Minnesota, and was shot to death by an off duty St Cloud police Officer.
In July 8, 2016, Abdirhman Ahmed Noor, a 24 year4 old refugee from Somalia, who entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program, jumped bail and remains at large after being charged with 2 counts of attempted murder in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Noor chased two men down, firing at them. One man, Dar’na Tansmore, was hit and laid wounded on the ground when Noor allegedly walked up, stood over his victim and shot him again. Lutheran Social Services South Dakota has been paid by the federal government to resettle 947 Somali refugees in South Dakota since 2002.
On June 12, 2016, Omar Saddiqul Mateen, the son of Afghan refugees, massacred 49 gentle & innocent Americans, and wounded 53 others, in the Orlando night club, Pulse, in the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
On June 2, 2016, one Sudanese refugee boy 14, and two Iraqi refugee boys, aged 7 and 10, stripped a 5 year old special needs girl naked and savagely raped her under knife point in the laundry room of the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho. An alert 89 year old retired nurse, Jaylene Payne, interrupted the attack when she saw all three of the refugees boys with their clothes off.
On March 24, 2016 seven Iranians working on behalf of the Iranian Government were indicted for a series of cyber-crimes that cost US financial institutions tens of millions of dollars and compromised critical controls of a New York Dam.
On February 16, 2016, a court magistrate ruled, after hearing the FBI testimony, that Khalil Abu-Rayyan, a 21 year old Iraqi man from Dearborn, MI, who is a son of an Iraqi Refugee. He was considered too much of a threat to public safety and was ordered held without bail. He got excited by thoughts of beheading Americans, burning people alive, and throwing homosexuals off of tall buildings. In conversations with an undercover FBI agent, he actually made plans to shoot 6,000 member of a Christian Church in Detroit. (If I) can’t go do Jihad at the Middle East, I would do my Jihad over here.” He also told the agent that “shooting and death make me excited. I love to hear people begging and screaming. … I wish I had my gun.” The FBI claims that since 2014, Abu-Rayyan used Twitter for “retweeting, liking and commenting” on Islamic State propaganda.
On February 12, 2016 a machete wielding assailant known to the FBI, identified as Mohammad Barry, a Somali refugee who entered the US on the UN Refugee Program, living in Ohio attacked Jewish and Christian patrons at a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, wounding four people. Witnesses said it was carnage. Some of the patrons fought back by throwing chairs. Police later shot and killed Barry after a short chase. Investigators are trying to determine if Barry attacked the Nazareth Mediterranean Restaurant because he thought the owner was Jewish. In actuality, the restaurant is owned by an Israeli Christian.
In Philadelphia, PA, Edward Archer, a 30 year old Jihadi, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, opened fire in the name of Islam, on Philadelphia Police Officer Jessie Hartnett, who was ambushed sitting in his car on January 8, 2016. Archer fired 11 shots and hit the Officer Hartnett three times, grievously wounding the officer; the officer returned fire and hit Archer three times.
In an unrelated case, also on January 7, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan, an Iraqi Refugee, was arrested in Houston, TX on charges of providing material support to ISIS and going thru terrorist training.
On January 7, 2016, Aws Mohammad Younis Al-Jayab, a Palestine born Iraqi, was arrested in Sacramento, CA on charges of assisting Jihadi organizations.
In December 2015, a Somali-American was arrested after encouraging several friends to leave the United States and join ISIS, and giving one individual over $200 for their passport application.
The son of an Pakistani immigrant Syed Rizwan Farouk, and Tashfeen Malik, who entered the United States on a fiancé visa thru Canada as Syed’s bride, and subsequently became a Lawful Permanent Resident, along with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, who pledged allegiance to ISIS, killed 14 people at a Christmas Party in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015 , and wounded 22 others, in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001. They were recruited to their jihad by a Muslim Somali refugee who has now moved to Syria, but continues to recruit Jihadist in America using social media.
Five Bosnian Muslim refugees (in the same family) were arrested on November 18, 2015, two in Missouri, two in Illinois and one New York for sending arms and cash to ISIS.
In November 17, 2015 A Uzbek Muslim refugee in Boise, ID was convicted of plotting to bomb US military bases.
On November 4, 2015. 18 year old Faisal Mohammad who had a black ISIS flag in his possessions and a terrorist manifesto, stabbed 4 of his fellow student at U C Merced; police had to shoot him to stop his stabbing spree. He had pro-ISIS propaganda on his computer. The FBI said he was a self-radicalized Islamic Jihadist.
A second Immigrant from India, who is married to a US citizen, who was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide thousands of dollars to Al Q’ieda in the Arabian Peninsula, in order to assist them in their global Jihad, and on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (November 2015)
On October 1, 2015, Chris Harper Mercer, a black Islamist terrorist who traveled to Syria in September 2015, to train with ISIS, and was identified as a Radical Islamic Terrorist by the Russian Security Service, executed a mass shooting on the campus of Umpqua Community College in Rosebud, Oregon killed 9 people and wounded 7 others. He was associated with Mahmoud Ali Ehsani, but the Obama administration refused to accept the referral from the Russian Security Service, and when he returned from Syria in September, he wasn’t arrested, so he perpetrated his mass shooting. He was shot to death by Police Officers
An immigrant from Egypt, who subsequently was granted U.S. citizenship, was charged with providing, and conspiring to provide, material support to ISIS, for aiding and abetting a New York college student in receiving terrorist training from ISIS, and conspiring to receive such training. (August 2015)
An immigrant from Albania, who applied for and received Lawful Permanent Resident status, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for giving over $1,000 to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, and for attempting to join a radical jihadist insurgent group in Pakistan. (August 2015)
A refugee from Uzbekistan was convicted of providing material support and money to a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to the Department of Justice, he also procured bomb-making materials in the interest of perpetrating a terrorist attack on American soil. (August 2015)
On August 14, 2015 three Somali Muslims, Mohamud Mohamed, 36, and Osman Sheikh, 31, Abil Teshome, 23, brutally beat and murdered Freddy Akoa, 49 a Christian in Portland, ME. The attack allegedly took place over the span of several hours, in which Akoa suffered cuts and bruises all over his body, a lacerated liver and 22 rib fractures. However, according to the autopsy, Akoa died as a result of blows to his head.
On August 12, 2015, a 39 year old Muslim Somali refugee, Libyan Mohamed, was sentence to three years in prison for attempted sexual assault on a 31 year old severely mentally handicapped woman sitting outside at a group home for the disabled in Aberdeen, South Dakota
Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered five US Armed Forces (1 Navy and 4 Marines) in Chattanooga, TN in July 2015. Mohammad was an immigrant brought here by his family from Kuwait at a young age, and who was later approved for U.S. citizenship, who carried out the Islamist attack that killed the 5 military personnel in Chattanooga.
An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs. (July 2015)
An immigrant from Sudan, who applied and received US citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage Jihad on its behalf after having been recruited on line(June 2015).
An immigrant from Ghana, who applied for and received US citizenship, pledged allegiance to ISIS and plotted a terrorist attack on the US soil (June 2015).
On May 3, 2015 an attack with gunfire was carried by two Radical Islamic Terrorists followers of ISIS at the entrance to the Curtis Culwell Center, in Garland, TX featuring cartoon images of Mohammad—both were shot and killed by a police officer. Just prior to the attack one of the gunmen posted “May Allah accept us as Mujahedeen”—he wrote both pledged allegiance to “Amirul Mu’mineen”, a likely reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
An Iraqi immigrant, who later applied for and received US citizenship, was arrested for lying to federal agents about pledging allegiance to ISIS and his travel to Syria (May 2015)
The Somali refugee who recruited the San Bernardino killers also recruited the jihadist who attacked the Garland, TX “Draw Mohammad” contest in May 2015, fled the United States.
On April 20, 2015, Six Somalian Muslim refugees were arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota for attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State and fight for ISIS.
An immigrant from Saudi Arabia, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, swore allegiance to ISIS and pledged to explode a propane tank bomb on U.S. soil. (April 2015).
An immigrant from Yemen, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, along with six other men, was charged with conspiracy to travel to Syria and to provide material support to ISIS. (April 2015).
A Uzbek man in Brooklyn encouraged other Uzbeki nationals to wage Jihad on behalf of ISIS, and raised $1,600 for the terror organization. (April 2015)
An immigrant from Syria, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was accused by federal prosecutors of planning to rob a gun store to “go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.” (April 2015)
A Kazakhstani immigrant with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS. (February 2015)
A Bosnian refugee, along with his wife and five others, donated money and supplies, and smuggled arms, to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. (February 2015)
On December 18, 2014 an radicalized ISIS supporter in Morganton, NC shot a 74 year old man in the head multiple times.
On December 14, 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, born to a Muslim African American family, executed two NYC police officers as they sat in their patrol car. Brinsley is reported to have approached the two officers as they were sitting in their patrol car in the notorious crime ridden Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, New York and began firing rounds into the vehicle before fleeing on foot to the closest subway station where he later committed suicide.
Two Bosnian Muslim refugee in Portland, Oregon was arrested in November 21, 2014 for trying to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
In September 30, 2014, ex-con Alton Nolan, a Muslim convert, a proponent of Sharia Law, who was radicalized to Islam behind bars, wielding a knife, beheaded a female employee, Colleen Hufford, at the Vaughn Foods processing plant in Moor, OK, and was prevented from beheading a second female employee by the company COO, who shot Nolan to stop his rampage.
An immigrant from Afghanistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, and a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, were convicted for “join Al Q’ieda and the Taliban in order to kill Americans.” (September 2014)
Five Somali Muslim refugees were charged in July 2014 with fundraising for jihadi groups in Africa.
A Somali immigrant with lawful permanent resident status, along with four other Somali nationals, is charged with leading an al-Shabaab fundraising conspiracy in the United States, with monthly payments directed to the Somali terrorist organization. (July 2014)
An immigrant from Bangladesh, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States. (June 2014)
On June 25, 2014 Ali Muhammad Brown, age 29, a devout Muslim, gunned down Brendan Brown, age 19, in Livingston, NJ. Ali said it was an act of retribution for US Military actions against Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
On June,1, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown confessed to the murder of a 30 year old man on April 27th. in Skyway, WA.
A Moroccan national who came to the U.S. on a student visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and a federal court house. (April 2014).
On April 3, 2014, Salam Al Haideri a 24 year old Iraqi Refugee from Niskayuna, NY who entered the US thru the UN Refugee program. He raped a 19 year old 4’11 teenager behind a “I Love NY” pizza place dumpster while slamming her head into the ground. The Iraqi Refugee’s 96-pound teenage victim was left with broken ribs and a fractured nose. Al Haideri was the third refugee to be convicted of a sex crime in the area. He was found guilty of aggravated assault and rape and was sentenced to 22 years to life.
On March 6, 2014 a Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death a leave a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
A college student who immigrated from Somalia, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. (Dec 2013)
On August 4, 2013 in Richmond, CA a radicalized Islamist convert “on a mission from Allah” stabbed a store clerk to death.
On April 19, 2013 in Boston, MA a Radical Islamic Terrorist, the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston Marathon Bombers) gunned down a University police officer sitting in his car
The April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; those brothers and their family were Muslim refugees. -The Boston Bombers were granted political asylum and were thus deemed legitimate refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship.
On March 24, 2013 in Ashtabula, OH a Muslim convert walks into a church service Quran, and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah
On February 7, 2013 in Buena Vista, NJ a Muslim man beheaded two Coptic Christians Immigrants.
On November 11, 2012 in Houston, TX a 28 year old American man is shot to death by a radical Muslim over an alleged role of converting a woman to Christianity.
In September 15, 2012, Amine El Khalifi, and al Q’ieda Radical Islamic Terrorist plotted to do a suicide bombing of the US Capital.
On February 18, 2012, two Radical Islamic Terrorists from Pakistan, who later applied for and received US Citizenship, were apprehended trying to detonate a bomb in New York City
On January 1, 2012 in Houston TX a 30 year old Muslim convert to Christianity is shot to death by a devout Muslim for converting his daughter to Christianity
On September 11, 2011 in Waltham, MA three Jewish men have their throats cut by Radical Islamic Terrorists.
Two Al Qaeda members from Iraq who had spent years in Iraq using IEDs and participated in attacks that killed American soldiers (their fingerprints were recovered from IEDs). Mohamed Hammadi age 25 and Walid Alwan age 31, were arrested in Bowling Green, KY on May 25, 2011 while living in public housing and were receiving public assistance; both entered the US thru the UN Refugee Program as Iraqi refugees! Hammadi was recorded in a telephone conversation plotting a terrorist attack in the US. They were both convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
On April 30, 2011 Mohammad Alfatlawi a proponent of Sharia Law was charged with the “Honor Killing” of his wife and daughter in Detroit, Michigan.
In May 4, 2010 Faisal Shahzad conducted a terrorist car bombing plot in Times Square that failed.
In December 25, 2009, the bombing terror plot to kill 290 innocent passengers on a flight from the Netherland to Detroit the Nigerian Radical Islamic Terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutlallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) failed to detonate on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 because the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned, and passengers were able to subdue him until he was arrested.
On December 4, 2009 in Bingham, NY a non-Muslim Islamic Studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim graduate student in revenge for Muslims who have been persecuted.
On November 5, 2009, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling “Allah Akbar” at the top of his lungs—Obama insisted it was simply “Work Place Violence” and not a Radical Islamic terrorist attack by a disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Prior to the shooting, in his previous assignment as an intern and resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center his colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his behavior and anti-American comments—but because they were cowered by the Obama’s administration’s warnings and perceived threats to their military standing, that they better be “politically correct’ and not disparage such anti-American comments—nothing was done to drum that Radical Islamic Terrorist out of the US Armed Forces.
On November 2, 2009 in Glendale, AZ a Muslim daughter dies from injuries suffered when her Muslim father runs her over with his car for being too “Westernized.”
On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam, who had gone to Yemen in 2007 and stayed for about 16 months, open fire on a Little Rock, Arkansas US Armed Forces Recruiting Office in a drive by shooting with a rifle, against a group of US Army Soldiers standing in front of the Recruiting Office. He killed Private William Long and wounded Private Quinton Ezeagwula.
On April 12, 2009 in Phoenix, AZ a Muslim man shoots his Muslim brother-in-law and another man to death, after he finds out that they visited a strip club in contradiction to Islamic values.
On February12, 2009 in Buffalo, NY a Muslim founder of a Muslim TV Station beheads his wife in the hallway of the TV Station for seeking a divorce.
On July 6, 2008 in Jonesboro, GA a devout Muslim man strangles his 25 year old daughter in an honor killing.

Myth #1- Semi-automatic rifles are ‘assault rifles’
Semi-automatic weapons only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. The media would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are weapons of mass destruction. California has even limited the sale of them. While you can certainly do some damage with a semi-automatic rifle, it’ s not the ‘pull and spray’ imagery the media uses to explain these weapons. These weapons are frequently used as hunting rifles, and are can not always be considered ‘assault weapons’ . Which leads us to #2, click the right arrow…

Myth #2- You can tell an ‘assault rifle’ just by looking at it
Assault weapons by definition are used for battlefield applications. But the media and lawmakers have blurred the lines of this definition to include anything that ‘looks’ like an assault weapon. This includes broad, erroneous assumptions about the weapons including things like “a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.” Up next, we tackle one of the most prevalent myths, click the right arrow below….

Myth #3 – Gun violence increases as gun ownership increases
This is debatable at best. The Washington Post recently pointed to a Duke University study that shows gun violence is high in the South, where gun ownership is high. But this study neglects to report that Utah and Minnesota have high rates of gun ownership and very low gun crime. A study by The Atlantic seems to how the real causation of gun violence: poverty. Which brings us to one of those ‘ viral’ myths that everyone talks about on Facebook…

Myth #4 – Australia’s gun confiscation reduced mass shootings to zero
This is a popular one on Facebook with the gun control crowd. It’ s true in some respect, Australia has had very few mass shootings since it’ s gun buy-back program in the 90’ s. But what everyone neglects to say is that gun deaths were falling drastically BEFORE the gun confiscation. And even Australia’ s own experts say attributing any decrease in violence to gun control is tenuous at best. Plus, Australia has seen a violent underground black market for guns blossom in the aftermath of gun control. Speaking of mass shootings, our next myth…

Myth #5- There were more mass shootings in 2015 than days of the year
This depends on your definition of ‘mass shooting’. Many media outlets, and the FBI in fact, define it as any case where 4 or more people were killed. And there were over 360 of those last year. But the overwhelming majority of those were the result of robbery, drugs, and gang violence. What we most think of as a ‘ mass shooting’ , in which the victims are random, occurs in a public place, and the shooter has some kind of political or social message, there were 4 (FOUR!) in 2015. Which brings us to the most common gun myth…

Myth #6 – Gun control reduces gun violence
Gun control advocates treat this as a forgone conclusion. But the data on whether gun control reduces crime is rarely decisive. Hundreds of studies have been done, and the data can really be parsed to support either side of the debate. There are cases where murder rates spike up after gun bans. In some places crime has been reduced after gun bans, but it’ s not clear if this has more to do with demographic shifts. In any case, when someone says definitively that gun control stops gun crime, they are probably using the only part of the data that suits their argument. But, don’ t most Americans favor gun control? Well….

Myth #7 – The majority of Americans favor gun control
Many media outlets treat the gun debate as if it’ s a forgone conclusion that Americans favor gun control. But Pew research polls show just how divisive this issue is. In a recent poll the data shows that about 50% of people want stricter gun laws. 50% of people support gun rights. But this all comes down to what you think guns are really used for….

Myth #8 – Guns are made to kill
Gun controllers believe that the only purpose of a gun is to kill someone or something. If that were true, guns are doing a pretty terrible job. According to Duke University, less than .02% of the guns in American households were used in a murder. And many of those guns were used in self-defense. The fact is that a gun’s best use is often to prevent crime, not perpetrate it. Which brings us to the contentious meaning of the 2nd Amendment…

Myth #9 – The Second Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to own the weapons of modern society
It’ s a familiar refrain: our forefather’ s could not have anticipated modern technology and would never have wanted citizens to have assault weapons. ‘ They were talking about muskets!’ goes the argument. But the spirit of the Second Amendment was to ensure the right of the people to defend themselves from government and other oppressors. And they felt it was so important they made it SECOND on a list of rights. How would citizens defend themselves from anything if we applied this logic and guaranteed everyone a right to own 18th century weapons? And how would the First Amendment work in modern times if we only applied it to technology available in the 18th century? Finally, we’ll talk about easily the most ridiculous gun myth…

Myth #10 – Gun free zones stop gun violence
This is an easy one to refute. Even with common sense we know that criminals would prefer to target places where the people are unarmed. There is plenty of research that shows that not only do gun free zones not reduce gun crimes, but the only thing that does is concealed carry laws.
PLEASE SHARE THIS ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, OR EMAIL IT TO YOUR FRIENDS.

To paraphrase the Beatles: Well, you know, you’d better free your mind instead; you may want a revolution but ought to settle for some evolution.

It is an article of revealed religion among defense elites that “we live in a relentlessly changing and fiercely competitive world.” Those words were from former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, once a physicist and someone deeply imbued with the idea that technological change and competition were the elements propelling change, and that those who failed to “innovate” were doomed to defeat: “Today’s era of military competition is characterized by the additional variables of speed and agility, such that leading the race now frequently depends on who can out-innovate faster than everyone else, and even change the game.”

Such attitudes took root in the late Cold War, back when the Pentagon had a “director for defense research and engineering”—a powerful post separate from the actual weapons-buying bureaucracy—and invested substantial sums in the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency. These agencies were dominated by engineers, practical people whose goal was not science per say but to find ways to put new technologies into the hands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. But the combination of the Cold War’s end and the endless small wars of the post-9/11 years has inverted this traditional approach; the leaders of the Defense Department have been driven by the immediate need to respond to today’s enemies—all of them unpredicted—and have luxuriated in an extreme form of futurism—dreams that must inevitably go unfulfilled.

The failure to build and field in important numbers the weapons designs of the 1990s has all but deprived U.S. forces of the conventional-force superiority that is a premise of their strategy. The past failures to innovate incrementally have added up, even though the Russians and Chinese—and, increasingly, their Iranian partners in what Walter Russell Mead has dubbed the “Axis of Weevils”—have done little more than attained the level of lethality and sophistication reached by U.S. forces during Desert Storm. And since the Weevils are, for the moment, entirely engaged in moving into the vacuum created by American withdrawals rather than testing their strength directly, it is hard to know what level of tactical competence they have really derived from their belated modernization, but the balance of military power has undoubtedly shifted. National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster put the matter succinctly: “When we minimize our Army, we maximize the risk to our soldiers, the risk that in a crisis they will be forced to enter a fight too few in number and without the training and equipment they need to win.”

In such circumstances, broad programs of military “transformation”—Donald Rumsfeld’s dream or a “third offset,” and Ash Carter’s homage to former Defense Secretary William Perry and the creation of “stealth” aircraft—are not relevant. Photon torpedoes, warp drives, and cloaking devices remain in the realm of the starship Enterprise. Better the urgency of President John Kennedy, who vowed to put an American on the moon “in this decade,” than the spirit of Captain James Kirk. And in fact, there are fairly mature military technologies that meet the test of restoring the tactical advantages that U.S. troops once enjoyed.

Perhaps the most tantalizing near-term technologies are related to the substitution of intense amounts of electrical energy for the explosive power of gunpowder. This comprises a kind of catch-all category that subsumes several developments and could have—at least to leaders with an engineering mindset—multiple applications. Fielding electrical-energy-based weapons depends upon the ability to generate and to store immense amounts of power, and then release it either as a destructive force on its own or to propel a projectile at extremely high speeds. Stored electricity might prove to be the gunpowder of the future.

The Defense Department and the military services have been experimenting with these technologies for a decade and more. The Army and Navy have tested a number of “railgun” designs. Railguns are electromagnetic launchers with a parallel set of conductors—the “rails”—that accelerate a sliding armature by passing a very strong current down one rail, along the armature to the other rail. In essence, it’s a 21st-century slingshot that hurls a very dense, but inert, projectile about twice as fast as a traditional cannon; the kinetic energy of these projectiles is enormous.

It does appear that the science of railguns has reached some level of maturity. The main technological challenges are generating and storing enough electrical power—that is to say, a big engine and a good set of batteries—to allow for repeated pulses of direct current that would yield militarily relevant rates of fire of something like six rounds per minute. Other challenges are to build durable and practical rails, since the launch process generates extreme heat that stresses the rail materials. Further, designing guidance mechanisms that can withstand the heat generated by the speed of the projectile may be difficult. On the plus side, the design of munitions ought to be simplified, as should storage, handling, and logistics, since there is no “warhead” atop a railgun round and explosives are not required. Moreover, the range of railguns would far exceed that of any cannon.

But again, the railgun literature strongly indicates that these are challenges for engineering, not basic science. The Navy is interested in railgun technology as a potential solution to the rising challenges of surface fleet air defense and, especially, cruise and ballistic missile defense. Ironically, the otherwise-disastrous Zumwalt-class destroyer—which is now a $4 billion-per-copy pocket battleship—would make a practical platform for a railgun-based system. The ship is huge for a “destroyer”; at almost 15,000 tons it’s almost twice the size of the current Arleigh Burke-class ships. And it has an electric engine that can not only drive the ship at 30 knots, but also generate huge amounts of additional electricity. The Navy originally planned to buy 32 Zumwalts, but the program has long since run aground—because of its technological and cost problems, but also, most importantly, because the ship was misconceived—and halted at just three. To redesign and revive the project would involve great further expense and be an engineering risk, surely. But it could also result in fielding a game-changing technology that would go far toward solving the “anti-access” problem posed by the growing arsenals of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian anti-ship missiles within the next decade rather than several decades. There is no reason to believe that designing a new class of ships would be any less expensive; indeed it is irrational to think that starting over would save money.

On a smaller scale, electromagnetic guns might become the main armaments on tanks and howitzers. While all the same challenges would recur and be compounded by the need to reduce both the source of the electricity and the storage device to the size of a ground combat vehicle, the fundamental engineering challenges are the same as for ships. And the Army already is experimenting with modifying existing howitzers to shoot the same projectile as an electromagnetic weapon. “It turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster,” says Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, who has been held over from the Obama Administration to ensure continuity in defense planning. “We are [saying to the next administration]: ‘Look, we believe this is the place where you want to put your money, but we’re going to have enough money in there for both the electromagnetic rail gun and the powder gun.’”

A related development, also resulting from the ability to generate and store immense amounts of power, that is on the cusp of science fiction and reality is the prospect of using directed energy itself as a weapon. Indeed, some low-level forms of directed energy have been employed by the military for some time: microwave systems that heat the water in skin cells, causing irritation, have been used as a crowd-control measure; microwaves also have been fielded to fry enemy electronic systems. Even the radars on combat aircraft may have limited applications in disrupting the sensors of attacking missiles. And, as far back as 2002, the U.S. Air Force began flying an “Airborne Laser”—basically, a giant high-energy chemical laser stuffed inside a 747 commercial aircraft body—as a missile defense test system. In January 2010 the system successfully passed an intercept test and a month later destroyed two targets in a single engagement. But shortly thereafter, amid one of the many rounds of defense budget reductions during the Obama Administration, the effort was scrapped. In many ways, fielding the system as designed was a bad idea—the laser itself needed to be more powerful and would have required a large and vulnerable aircraft to fly within range of enemy air defenses—but the underlying concept was sound and indicative that such systems were technologically feasible, if tactically immature. Also, it was clear that using electricity rather than chemistry as a power source was a better solution.

Electromagnetic guns, hypersonic projectiles or even directed energy death rays would by themselves not necessarily constitute a revolution in warfare. But these technologies could yield a substantial increase in the capabilities of a wide variety of legacy platforms—and, importantly, again provide U.S. forces with a significant battlefield edge. Most of all, such investments could get the American military back in the habit of continuous modernization and the operational innovation that comes from actually fielding new capabilities. The enthusiasts for “transformation” of the past generation have been looking through the wrong end of the telescope; their model of innovation was that, starved of funds, the U.S. armed services would have to think of new ways to fight. But, through history, the process of change in war has been one that more frequently rewards practical tinkering—matching organizations and doctrine to technologies—more than bold conceptualization. Imagining the tank or the fighter aircraft was the basis for a revolution, but to realize it demanded their integration into combined-arms formation and figuring out how to keep that organization supplied with fossil fuel.

Finally, the experience of recent decades ought to debunk the transformationists’ idea that the United States could afford a geopolitical “strategic pause” to pursue a strategy of innovation. Nor can a global power afford an “offset” approach. To paraphrase the Beatles one last time: Evolution is the real solution. And you can see the plan.

The Duplicity of the “Russian Collusion” is the Collusion Between Obama, Democrat Senators, and the Russians

By Capt Joseph R. John, March 7, 2017: Op Ed # 340

Since the 1920s Russian Communists have tried to destabilize US elections, as they are currently trying to destabilize elections in France. Russian Communists have been very successful in supporting candidates for Congress in the US who want to bring down the US Constitutional form of government. Over the last 100 years, Russia promoted the philosophies of candidates in the US that resulted in the election of 70 Democratic members of Congress who are Socialists, Leftists, Communists, Progressives, and Muslims (you can easily obtain their names by making a request of Google for the “Socialists, Communists, and Progressives in Congress”).

The goal for all elections in the US should be to prevent the Russians, China, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and any other foreign power from influencing US Congressional and Presidential elections. Following the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and the left of center liberal media establishment have been promoting Russian conspiracy theories as the reason why Hillary lost the election. The assertion is that the Russia worked with the Trump Presidential Campaign to hack the Democratic National Committee, to interfere with, and deny Hillary what she felt was her right to be elected to the presidency.

The Russian narrative of collusion is fake news propped up by the left of center liberal media establishment, in order to delegitimize President Trump. After 4 months of investigation, there is absolutely no evidence of collusion, or one source that the press can identify who can prove collusion. The Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, James R. Clapper, stated that there has been no evidence that Russia colluded with anyone in the Trump Presidential Campaign Organization, that there is no proof that Russia affected the votes in any state, or that Russia’s actions actually caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election.

Many leftist and progressive organizations have been working closely with Obama’s Organization For America (OFA), with Soros, Bill Ayers, and Valerie Jarret (who moved into Obama’s rented house in Washington) to initiate a silent coup d’état, to oust President Trump from office. Sources told the Daily Mail that Obama hates Trump and plans to bring down the Trump administration. Obama is employing 32,000 Alinsky trained radicals, operating out of 250 offices across the nation, who are being paid by Soros to sabotage the Trump administration.

Obama puts on a charming face for the press, but his hate for President Trump is evil. OFA is leading a full-fledged effort to deny President Trump control of the US Government, with the help of thousands of Obama’s political appointees, still in positions of leadership in the Intelligence Agencies and other departments of US Government. For the last 4 months, Obama has showed his true colors, in his concerted effort to employ OFA and the left of center liberal media establishment to allege that Russia colluded with the Trump Campaign to defeat Hillary and to support violent demonstrations in the streets.

The slow approval of members of President Trumps Cabinet by Democrats in the Senate, and the reluctance to approve over 500 sub-cabinet appointees requiring Senate approval. The slowdown has been orchestrated to allow the Obama political appointees to remain in their appointed positions throughout the government. The goal is to undermine the Trump administration and provide leak of damaging information to the press. All Obama appointees should be required to submit their resignation, as is custom following a presidential election, when a new administration gains power.

In June 2016, it was reported that Obama administration surrogates approached the FISA Court to surveille Donald Trump; the application was rejected by a Federal Judge. In October 2016, the Obama administration Justice Department submitted a second request to a FISA Court to surveil two Russian Banks that was approved. They were apparently successful with that wiretap, because in November the New York Times reported that it was learned “thru a wiretap” that General Flynn had spoken to Russian representatives in the course of communicating with 45 other governments (incidentally that was his job; Obama’s representatives were negotiating with Iran in meetings in the country of Oman long before Obama was inaugurated). Someone in Justice or in one the intelligence agencies leaked to the New York Times, that a wiretap had revealed that General Flynn had communicated with a representative of the Russian government.

On inauguration day, the New York Times reported in a front page story, that The White House received information from a wiretap, that there was no conclusive evidence of any wrong doing by the Trump Campaign with Russia. That was the second violation of federal law by leakers to the New York Times: those leakers should be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act.

Yet the New York Times keeps reporting that President Donald Trump has given no proof of a wiretap of the Trump campaign; they refused to inform their readers that revealing details of a FISA wiretap is against federal law and details can’t be revealed to the general public. Certain provision s of the Espionage Act and Federal Law EO 1333, Section 23c allows the President of the United States to wiretap phones without a FISA Warrant (that is called collecting incidental intelligence); that may have been the way that Obama’s Justice Department wire tapped Donald Trump’s phones. The wiretap was not an FBI wiretap.

Only 17 days before Obama left office, he changed President Eisenhower’s, tried and true, method of handling very sensitive highly classified signal intelligence. Obama changed the manner in which highly classified and sensitive signal intelligence could be shared by the NSA; he didn’t make that damaging changed the previous 8 years. By authorized the NSA to share very sensitive information with 17 US Intelligence Agencies, Obama allowed too many people access to intelligence that had no need to know. That last minute change by Obama, made it very difficult to track who is currently releasing the classified intelligence information today. Ever since Hillary lost the election, intelligence leaks by intelligence agencies have been ongoing and damaging seriously National Security.

The Democrats tried to hide the fact that the Russian Ambassador had meetings in the Obama White House and Valerie Jarret 22 times to advance the extremely dangerous Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement and support Valerie Jarret’s allies in Iran. In addition, 30 Democratic Senators met with Communist diplomats from Russia and China on Capitol Hill to tamp down opposition to, and advance Obama’s dangerous Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement.

It is not far-fetched to report, and there should be no surprise for the American people to learn that the Obama administration instigated the surveillance of the Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign, by simply reviewing how Obama tried to restrict the rights of American citizens, listed below, and learn how Obama violated the US Constitutional rights of Americans over the last 8 years:

(1) The Obama Justice Department wiretapped the telephone of James Rosen, a TV Press Reporter in violation of Freedom of the Press.

(3) Obama’s IRS targeted Conservative Groups in the “Tea Party Scandal” and prevented them from registering as tax free organization to participate in national election; a violation of Freedom of the Right to participate in elections.

(4) Obama’s ATF “Operation Fast and Furious Scandal” perpetrated by then Attorney General Eric Holder transferred 2000 weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels was aimed at somehow compromising the right of Americans to purchase weapons from gun dealers in the US, in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of a US President to be held in contempt of Congress for his actions.

(5) When it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had transmitted Top Secret SCI messages via a private unclassified server located in the basement of her home for 4 years, and that some of the compartmented messages with even higher classifications may have compromised the safety of intelligent assets in foreign countries, and possibly resulted in their deaths, Obama said that he had no problem with her unclassified server. Hillary and Obama were responsible for compromising very sensitive national security information. Hillary’s transmissions may have led to the attack in Benghazi, because Hillary’s intercepted messages insisted on the removal of security for the Libyan Ambassador, leaving the US Mission virtually unprotected.

A review of the duplicity by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Jarret, Democratic Senators, and Democratic Congressmen in their meetings with Russians, that was ignored by the left of center liberal media establishment for 8 years. The Democrats can make the below listed egregious agreements with the Russians, yet the press didn’t accuse them of colluding with Russia. President Trump’s staff is being accused daily of wild Russian conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. When the American people compare the below listed information with the few phone calls made by General Flynn in the function of his duties, there should be no doubt about who has been colluding with Russia to the detriment of the United States:

(1) In 2012, shortly just prior to the presidential election, Obama was meeting with Putin’s number two, (then Russian President) Dmitry Medvedev). There was an open microphone and Obama was overheard — and it was reported — “You tell Vladimir that I’ll have a lot more flexibility after the election.”

(2) Then Russia invaded Crimea, and conquered the first country, since WWII, and Obama did absolutely nothing.

(3) Then Russia had their military personnel in unmarked uniforms attacked Ukraine; Ukraine literally begged the US for defensive weapons, and Obama did nothing.

(4) Despite the warning of Israel and many other US allies, Obama did nothing when Putin provided surface to air missiles to protect Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities, protecting them from military strikes by Israel.

(5) When Putin joined Iran and Assad in killing US trained Sunni freedom fighters throughout Syria, Obama did nothing.

(6) Obama allowed Hillary, his Secretary of State, to authorize the transfer of 20% of the United States Uranium to Russia.

(7) Hillary’s Clinton Foundation in Canada received support from a Putin Front Company and John Podesta received stock and was placed on the Board of Directors of that company following the transfer of the 20 % of the US’s uranium to Russia

The true “Russian Collusion” is the collusion between Barack Obama, the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, and the Russians. Obama approved giving Russia, 20% of the United States uranium production, as a thank you gift for supporting the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement on the international stage, and gave Iran 116 metric tons of US uranium. Obama’s team used the pretext of Russian interference in the election to justify wiretapping the Trump Campaign, and to authorize illegal leaks to the press. Obama continues to oppose the legitimacy of President Trump’s election, opposes the retention of Attorney General Session, and was successful in opposing the retention of General Flynn as the National Security Advisor.

Obama is the first former occupant of the Oval Office in 240 years to try to bring down his successor by sabotaging his programs on a daily basis. The below listed article outlines the 64 ways Obama is sabotaging the Trump administration!!!

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

WND Exclusive

64 ways Obama is sabotaging Trump

Ex-president plots to force resignation or impeachment

Garth Kant

818

WASHINGTON – It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate.

“Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment,” the Daily Mail reported Wednesday.

The source also told the paper that Obama loathes President Trump and considers his presidency illegitimate.

“Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy – Obamacare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,” the source told the

The following is a list of what has been publicly reported, by WND and others, about what Obama is trying to do to oppose — many say destroy — the Trump presidency and how he is doing it:

1) Obama is using his new mansion, just two miles from the White House, as his headquarters in his insurgency against Trump.

2) Obama’s shadow White House has a taxpayer-funded office, a chief of staff and press secretary.

3) He is working behind the scenes to set up a shadow government to protect his legacy and sabotage the incoming administration.

4) A family source said Obama was reluctant to lead the opposition to Trump because he was “weary and burned out.” But top adviser Valerie Jarrett convinced him it was the only way to salvage his legacy.

5) The source said, “Obama doesn’t make a decision without her,” and he has now embraced his new role leading the campaign to sabotage the administration because he loathes Trump, whose presidency he considers illegitimate.

6) To guide and counsel Obama, Jarrett has moved into his 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million mansion.

7) According to the source, Michelle Obama and Jarrett will strategize to topple Trump.

8) The former first lady and the Obama Foundation will both have offices in the mansion. Presumably, Jarrett will, too.

9) Obama will implement his plans through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action, or OFA, the organization that grew out of his campaign group, Organizing for America.

10) That will give Obama a virtual army of agitators and organizers at is disposal. Federal tax records show OFA has 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Another 25,000 are actively under training.

11) OFA has more than 250 offices across the country.

12) OFA is equipped with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, which it will use to rally resistance to Trump and get out the vote for Democratic Party candidates.

13) OFA is registered as a “social welfare” non-profit 501(c)(4), that doesn’t have to disclose its donors. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since 2013.

14) OFA volunteers are professionally trained organizers who go through a six-week training program that includes Alinsky agitation tactics. OFA is run by ex-Obama officials and staffers.

15) OFA plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump’s effort to repeal Obamacare.

16) Obama appeared to be behind anti-Trump protests. He praised demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban. And, after the election he personally rallied OFA troops to protect his legacy in a conference call. “Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope” over the election results.”

17) After Trump’s victory, Obama also promised OFA activists he would soon join them in the battle. “Understand that I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen, but that’s not so far off,” he said. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

18) He also said, “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy. I’ve got all kinds of thoughts and ideas about it, but this isn’t the best time to share them.”

19) Since the election, OFA has added staff and accelerated its recruitment of liberal activists.

26) An OFA post on Facebook called on activists to mobilize against Republicans until Feb. 26, when “representatives are going to be in their home districts.”

27) The protesters disrupted town halls including one held in Utah by House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who was confronted by hundreds of angry protesters claiming to be his constituents.

28) The manual advised protesters to spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposed the Republican host’s positions. It said, “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urged them to ask “hostile” questions – while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” – and loudly boo the GOP politician.

29) An audio recording obtained by a Louisiana radio station documented that progressive activists plotted to take over a town hall meeting held by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. Activists were instructed to dress like conservatives and leave at home “any signifier that you’re a liberal in order to blend in.”

30) The station identified one of the voices on the recording as James Proctor, a leader of Indivisible Acadiana, a local branch of the national Indivisible organization, which has organized hostile Republican town halls all around the country.

31) Protesters were advised to send video footage to local and national media. “Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating” for Republican lawmakers, the manual said, when “shared through social media and picked up by local and national media.”

32) Protesters gave networks footage of their confrontations with Chaffetz, forcing him to issue statements defending himself.

33) A study by the Media Research Center found that 88 percent of the broadcast news coverage of the Trump administration was “hostile” during the first 30 days of office. The study analyzed both tone and content for evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS.

34) A script in the training manual advised callers to complain: “I’m honestly scared that a known racist and anti-Semite will be working just feet from the Oval Office … It is everyone’s business if a man who promoted white supremacy is serving as an adviser to the president.” But the document provided no evidence to support the accusations.

35) The manual also advised protesters to flood lawmakers’ offices with phone calls and emails demanding the resignation of top White House adviser Steve Bannon.

37) Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said he was certain the former president and elements of the Democratic Party were behind the protests because they have been too organized and too professional to be random eruptions of grass-roots discontent. “Obama. George Soros money, I’m certain, is involved,” he said. “They also discuss how to play up to the media, and they illustrate that the media’s not very hard to convince. The media is on their side. The media is only too eager to cooperate, as we know.”

38) Trump agreed Obama was probably behind the protests. “Well, you never know what’s exactly happening behind the scenes,” Trump said. “You know, you’re probably right, or possibly right, but you never know. No, I think that President Obama is behind it because his people are certainly behind it. And the some of the leaks possibly come from that group, you know, some of the leaks which are really very serious leaks because they’re very bad in terms of national security. But I also understand that’s politics. And in terms of him being behind things, that’s politics, and it will probably continue.”

39) Limbaugh said, “Hedge funds and Hollywood are assisting him (Obama), so there is money and propaganda on his side. ABC is among the worst in the mainstream media, which is a total disgrace for Disney.”

40) Limbaugh also noted that impeachment talk is being used by Democrats to derail Trump: “Now, they don’t have the numbers in Congress to pull it off, but can you imagine if Democrat House managers even start breathing the word seriously? The media is gonna be all over it! The media’s gonna eat it up! The media’s gonna be asking Republicans, ‘Why aren’t you joining the Democrats? Don’t you understand? This is a serious movement to impeach the president. He’s doing great damage to the country.’ I can see it all now.”

41) “Obama has circumvented the Democrats with [Organizing for America] and has established a clandestine unaccountable political party taking money from questionable people,” said Martin Armstrong, whose Armstrong Economics provides commentary on a wide range of issues extending beyond economics, including history, global warming, real estate and world events.

42) Armstrong added: “Obama is behind the effort to derail and block the Trump administration on everything. However, Obama may be sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Democratic Party altogether. Those who think Obama is not behind this coup are blinded by their bias.”

43) Armstrong explained that Obama “is deliberately trying to create an uprising and is side-stepping the Democratic Party himself because they will not agree with his agenda.”

44) At the same time, Obama is said to be angling for control over the party by installing his former civil rights chief, Tom Perez, as the newly elected head of the Democratic National Committee. Perez vowed, “It’s time to organize and fight … We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments,” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grassroots organizing force this country has ever seen.”

45) OFA is working with the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, or NDRC, launched recently by Obama former attorney general Eric Holder, to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts and to try to redraw the districts in a way more favorable to Democrats to increase their members in Congress.

46) Holder said he had discussed Obama fundraising for the NDRC and interacting with state lawmakers on the group’s behalf.

47) Spokesman Jared Leopold described the tax-exempt NDRC as a “super group” that brings together the efforts of the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC.

48) On Tuesday, Holder promised Democrats that Obama is getting ready for a public return to politics. “It’s coming. He’s coming,” Holder said while discussing NDRC, which Obama asked him to chair last year. “And he’s ready to roll,” and “will be a more visible part of the effort,” Holder added.

49) Obama signaled his intention before leaving the White House last fall, saying that his post-presidency focus would be on general assembly races and redistricting after the 2020 Census, trying to recapture some of the enormous number of seats Democrats lost at the state level during his presidency.

50) Obama said in September, “Once out of office, I’m gonna stop being polite and start getting real.”

51) Obama hinted that he planned to start speaking out more like an activist than a president. There are “things,” he said in an interview, “that in some ways I suspect I’m able to do better out of this office.” He elaborated that because of the “institutional constraints” of the presidency, “there are things I cannot say.”

52) Obama went on to essentially say he would be an activist after leaving office. “There are institutional obligations I have to carry out that are important for a president of the United States to carry out, but may not always align with what I think would move the ball down the field on the issues that I care most deeply about,” he said.

53) Then, in his final news conference as president, Obama vowed to take action if President Trump dared to “round up” children of illegal immigrants, “roll back voting rights” or engage in “systemic discrimination.”

54) Obama also indicated he would take a more activist role to defend “core values that may be at stake” under a Trump administration. “The reason that we are the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote, it traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery,” he said.

55) Obama warned Trump not to roll back his executive actions. During his campaign for president, Trump promised to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” Obama also lectured Trump about the use of executive orders, telling the incoming president to avoid taking unilateral action.

56) The Obama administration apparently spied on Trump’s presidential campaign and transition team. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he was concerned by the extent of surveillance but not completely surprised, because he “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.” Anonymous sources have been feeding information to the New York Times suggesting the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials, including intelligence agents.

57) In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election – and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians – across the government.

58) Those sources from the Obama administration claimed Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed – or its sources exposed – once power changed hands. So they reportedly pushed to preserve the alleged intelligence.

59) Obama White House officials took steps to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see the intelligence.

Sensational new report documents start of “CIVIL WAR II” in America. Enraged at losing the election, the left has launched an all-out effort to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency.

60) The sources claimed to suspect the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks, but the Times also reported that American officials acknowledged there is not confirmation of that.

61) The Times reported some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators – including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

62) Intelligence agencies kept the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government – and, in some cases, among European allies.

63) There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress.

64) In the weeks before the assessment was released in January, the intelligence community combed through databases for an array of communications and other information and began producing reports that showed there were contacts during the campaign between Trump associates and Russian officials. However, the Times acknowledged, the nature of the contacts remains unknown, and several of Trump’s associates have done business in Russia, and it was unclear if any of the contacts were related to business dealings.

How and Why the Senate Must Reform the Filibuster
January 2017 • Volume 46, Number 1 • Tom McClintock
Tom McClintock
U.S. House of Representatives
________________________________________
Tom McClintock has served as the U.S. Representative for California’s 4th congressional district since 2009. He received his B.A. from UCLA. He is a senior member of the House Natural Resources Committee, where he chairs the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, and serves on the House Budget Committee. Prior to his election to Congress, he served for 22 years in the California legislature and ran for governor in California’s recall election in 2003.
________________________________________

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 11, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

The Senate prides itself as being the greatest deliberative body in the world. When Jefferson asked Washington why the Constitutional Convention created the Senate, Washington compared it to the hot tea Jefferson cooled in a saucer. “We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

The Founders designed the two houses of Congress to have different perspectives and temperaments. The House, representing smaller constituencies and constantly up for re-election, would reflect the hot passions of popular will. This is a vital component of representative government, but more is required in making good decisions. The Founders knew, as Benjamin Franklin put it, that “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely.” The Senate, with longer terms and generally larger constituencies, was designed to temper passions with reason, which requires deliberation. A lot of deliberation.

Central to ensuring this deliberation is the unfettered freedom of debate accorded in the Senate. While the House rations time parsimoniously, often to just a single hour of debate even on major legislation, the Senate insists on giving all its members the widest possible latitude to hold a question up to every light.

A popular aphorism in the House of Representatives is, “The other party is the opposition; the Senate is the enemy.” As a member of the House myself, I find the Senate’s byzantine rules frustrating; but after all, frustrating House members is part of the Senate’s mission. Yes, the Senate is a pain, but where would we be without it?

On the other hand, deliberation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve wise and enlightened legislation with the consent of the people. And this is where the Senate is on the verge of dysfunction.

Over the last several congressional elections, and most conspicuously in the recent presidential election, the American people have sent a clear signal that they want a major change in public policy. It is the duty of Congress to respond. To do so, it needs to deliberate wisely and in good faith, with all sides participating and all voices heard. But then this deliberation must result in laws that accord with the people’s will.

Some in the new Congress have set a positive tone, but we have also heard reactionary elements vow to thwart the popular mandate. It is natural for the minority to use every available means to try to change the majority’s mind or temper its fervor, and our system offers it many ways to do so. But that’s different from obstruction, which is why these vows by some senators are as disturbing as they are credible.

They are credible because the modern Senate filibuster has become a tool for the minority to block any meaningful legislation from being enacted or even considered. Given its record of abuse in recent years—by both parties—the Senate needs to repair its rules regarding the filibuster if it is to have any hope of performing its constitutional duty.

January 2017 • Volume 46, Number 1 • Tom McClintock

The parliamentary tactic of a minority thwarting the will of the majority by talking a bill to death is nothing new. The Roman Senate’s rules required business to conclude before sunset. Cato the Younger discovered that he could block Julius Caesar’s initiatives by talking until dusk descended on the Senate chamber.

Caesar responded by throwing Cato in jail. Common parliamentary practice dealt with the tactic by allowing a motion to “order the previous question”—in other words, to close debate and vote—often requiring a two-thirds vote. This super-majority threshold to close debate is rooted in the principle that a significant minority should be able to extend debate. After all, a minority exists to convince the majority to its way of thinking and often identifies flaws in a proposal that a majority doesn’t see in its rush to adopt. This is the fruit of deliberation and the essence of deliberative assemblies.

But this parliamentary principle assumes that there is an actual debate, that it is germane to the subject at hand, and that it is not conducted in a manifestly dilatory manner.

Within a few decades of the Amer¬ican Founding, senators rediscovered Cato’s practice of killing a bill by killing time, and the Senate filibuster was born. Yet it was rarely used because of its natural limitations. A filibustering senator had to remain for the most part at his desk and on his feet. In 1908, for example, Robert La Follette of Wisconsin held the floor for 18 hours—speaking for long periods of time, and demanding dozens of quorum calls and roll-call votes—to stall a banking reform bill. The bill eventually passed, but not without significant consternation on both sides, due to the fact that until the filibustered matter was disposed of, the Senate could not move on to other business.

The filibuster is fundamentally different today because of two changes to Senate rules—changes that explain the body’s current inability to act. The first occurred in 1917 in response to a filibuster of something called the Armed Ship Bill. The Senate adopted a cloture rule setting the threshold for ending debate at two-thirds of those present and voting, later changed to three-fifths of the whole Senate. Even then, this change was in keeping with common parliamentary practice. And even after its passage, the filibuster’s physically demanding nature meant that it was seldom employed. There were only 58 filibusters in the next 52 years—barely one per year.

But beginning in 1970, the number of filibusters exploded by a magnitude of 36-fold. There have been 1,700 in the 46 years since then. Why? Because in 1970, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield instituted a “two-track” system that allowed the Senate, by unanimous consent or the approval of the minority leader, to bypass a filibustered bill and go on to another. This relieved a filibustering senator of the job of having to talk through the night and it relieved his colleagues of their frustration.
The filibuster thus entered the couch-potato world of virtual reality, where an actual speech is no longer required to block a vote. Today the mere threat of a filibuster suffices to kill a bill as the Senate shrugs and goes on to other business. The filibuster has been stripped of all the unpleasantness that discouraged its use and encouraged compromise and resolution.
Whereas the filibuster prior to 1970 was designed to ensure debate, after adoption of the two-track system it mutated into a procedure that prevents debate. As a result, the greatest deliberative body in the world now has difficulty deliberating on anything of importance.

During the last session of Congress, the House sent hundreds of bills to the Senate, including appropriations bills required to fund the government. In¬stead of amending those bills and sending them back to the House, the Senate seized up—not for lack of majority will, but because of minority recalcitrance and the post-1970 filibuster.

January 2017 • Volume 46, Number 1 • Tom McClintock

This represents three serious dangers to constitutional government.

First, the legislative branch cannot function if one house proves unable to act on major legislation, and the atrophy of the legislative branch drives a corresponding hypertrophy of the executive branch. It is perhaps the single greatest reason for the rise of the imperial executive in recent decades. President Obama’s constant refrain, “If Congress fails to act I will,” is poisonous to a constitutional republic—but it is inevitable if the legislature wastes away. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the modern Senate filibuster has created one at the heart of our Constitution.

Second, because the American peo¬ple hold the sovereign authority in our country but delegate sovereign power to their elected representatives, they have every reason to lose faith in their government if their broad sentiments expressed in elections are not translated into law. This is why the belief that “my vote doesn’t matter”—a belief suicidal to a democratic republic—is increasingly heard expressed in our country today.

Third, the ability of the minority to cause gridlock in the legislative branch undermines the authority of the Constitution itself. Implicit in the design of Congress is its power to act on most matters by majority vote. Ex¬traordinary majorities are reserved only for extraordinary matters such as treaties, constitutional amendments, impeachments, expulsions, and veto overrides. The practical effect of the modern filibuster is to replace the constitutional benchmark of majority rule with an artificial threshold of three-fifths.

A central concept in maintaining the balance of powers is the assumption that the members of each branch of government will jealously and aggressively defend their prerogatives against the others. So why do senators allow their body to be paralyzed?
Many argue that the current 60-vote cloture threshold is necessary to prevent one party from running amok; that the requirement for an extraordinary majority assures bipartisanship and compromise. They rightly warn that if legislation is to stand the test of time, it must have a certain degree of bi-partisan consensus that the cloture rule facilitates. Yet when one looks at the Senate today, it’s hard to find much collegiality or compromise, both of which require the give-and-take of good-faith deliberation. Nor is compromise possible if the matter to be compromised can’t be considered. If the minority can block an initiative by a mere threat to filibuster, it has no incentive to pursue compromise.

Republican defenders of the modern filibuster note that the greatest growth of government occurs when Democrats hold both the White House and Congress. The current rules, they argue, are an essential brake for the minority to use at such times. But unfortunately, these rules have proven even more effective at blocking legislation that shrinks government. The result is a ratcheting effect that locks in every government expansion, even those that prove disastrous.

January 2017 • Volume 46, Number 1 • Tom McClintock

One obvious solution to the filibuster is to require a simple majority to close debate, as the House has done for centuries. But this defeats one of the chief purposes of the Senate: a significant minority ought to be heard over the objections of a majority. So how can this purpose be preserved, while restoring the Senate’s ability to legislate?

First, the Senate should get rid of the two-track system that allows it to bypass a filibustered bill and reinstitute the pre-1970 requirement that filibusterers hold the floor. The fact that the number of filibusters exploded after the two-track system was introduced speaks for itself. Once the Senate removed all the fuss and bother of the filibuster, filibusters became common. Yes, this means the Senate would have to deal with a filibuster before moving on to other matters—but it is precisely this inconvenience that made it such a rare event and built pressure on both sides to resolve an impasse.

Second, the Senate should restore the parliamentary principle that debate must be germane to the pending piece of legislation. The Senate may pride itself on colorful tales of Huey Long reading Cajun recipes on the Senate floor. But how does this practice fulfill the role of the Senate as a deliberative body? Time on the Senate floor is a critical and limited public resource. Tolerating irrelevant speeches squanders that resource and makes a mockery of the Senate. Senate rules already require germane debate during the first three hours of a legislative day—but not after that! Go figure.

Third, make the “motion to proceed” undebatable, or at least subject to a maj¬ority vote. This incidental motion is itself now subject to filibuster, which prevents the Senate from even getting to actual bills. Great debates should be had on great matters—but not great debates on whether to debate.

Fourth, limit senators to two speeches on a question. Under current Senate rules, a single senator can make two speeches on every motion every legislative day.

Fifth, after a certain period of debate has elapsed—during which filibustering can occur—allow a majority to set a limit for individual speeches on a pending question to something like two hours. A senator who can’t get to the heart of a matter in two hours isn’t trying very hard.

January 2017 • Volume 46, Number 1 • Tom McClintock

Some senators have argued that the Senate can repair itself within its current rules. The majority leader could decline to sidetrack filibustered bills, force a debate until the minority is exhausted, and hold the Senate in session to avoid resetting the two-speech per day limit. But experience has shown that in a battle of wills, a determined minority will prevail. The surer course is to restore the original parliamentary principles of debate to Senate rules.

There are two ways to implement these reforms. One is to follow the precedent established by Senate Democrats in 2013 when they lowered the cloture threshold to a majority for non-Supreme Court presidential nominees: ignore the rules as they are written, declare a new and fictitious interpretation, and impose that interpretation by overturning the parliamentary ruling of the chair.

This “nuclear option” might be effective, but it is highly corrosive to the parliamentary procedure required for a well-functioning legislature. Pretending that a rule says something different than it does is a shortcut to anarchy.

The other way is to invoke what re-formers over the years have called the “constitutional option.” Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants each house the power to establish its own rules. Senate tradition holds that, by virtue of its staggered terms, it is a continuing body and therefore its rules continue in full force from session to session until amended. Those rules require a two-thirds vote for cloture on a change to the rules, creating the paradox that the very provision that needs reform prevents reform.

This doctrine of the Senate as a continuing body, however, is belied by the fact that all pending motions at the close of one Congress do not extend into the next. It also runs afoul of the bedrock principle that one Congress may not bind the next. A strong case can be made that until the Senate adopts rules to govern its two-year session, it is operating solely on precedent. It retains its constitutional authority to adopt new rules by a simple majority vote for the current session unfettered by hindrances imposed by a previous one.

The choice of whether the Senate majority restores its constitutional role in lawmaking is its own to make, to live with, and to answer for. In making that choice, it needs to consider whether its current rules of debate advance or obstruct its role as a deliberative body with the responsibility of passing reasonable laws that comport with the public will.

Of historic moments like these, Shakespeare’s Brutus said, “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves or lose our ventures.”

Voters elected Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and they expect action. They’ll get it from the President and from the House. But in order for the Senate to rise to this occasion, it must reform its rules.

Restoring America’s Economic Mobility
September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9 • Frank Buckley
Frank Buckley
Author, The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America
________________________________________
Frank Buckley is a Foundation Professor at Scalia Law School at George Mason University, where he has taught since 1989. Previously he was a visiting Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and he has also taught at McGill Law School, the Sorbonne, and Sciences Po in Paris. He received his B.A. from McGill University and his LL.M. from Harvard University. He is a senior editor of The American Spectator and the author of several books, including The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America and The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America.
________________________________________

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on July 11, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” Today the story of American politics is the story of class struggles. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. We didn’t think we were divided into different classes. Neither did Marx.

America was an exception to Marx’s theory of social progress. By that theory, societies were supposed to move from feudalism to capitalism to communism. But the America of the 1850s, the most capitalist society around, was not turning communist. Marx had an explanation for that. “True enough, the classes already exist,” he wrote of the United States, but they “are in constant flux and reflux, constantly changing their elements and yielding them up to one another.” In other words, when you have economic and social mobility, you don’t go communist.

That is the country in which some imagine we still live, Horatio Alger’s America—a country defined by the promise that whoever you are, you have the same chance as anyone else to rise, with pluck, industry, and talent. But they imagine wrong. The U.S. today lags behind many of its First World rivals in terms of mobility. A class society has inserted itself within the folds of what was once a classless country, and a dominant New Class—as social critic Christopher Lasch called it—has pulled up the ladder of social advancement behind it.

One can measure these things empirically by comparing the correlation between the earnings of fathers and sons. Pew’s Economic Mobility Project ranks Britain at 0.5, which means that if a father earns £100,000 more than the median, his son will earn £50,000 more than the average member of his cohort. That’s pretty aristocratic. On the other end of the scale, the most economically mobile society is Denmark, with a correlation of 0.15. The U.S. is at 0.47, almost as immobile as Britain.

A complacent Republican establishment denies this change has occurred. If they don’t get it, however, American voters do. For the first time, Americans don’t believe their children will be as well off as they have been. They see an economy that’s stalled, one in which jobs are moving offshore. In the first decade of this century, U.S. multinationals shed 2.9 million U.S. jobs while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. General Electric provides a striking example. Jeffrey Immelt became the company’s CEO in 2001, with a mission to advance stock price. He did this in part by reducing GE’s U.S. workforce by 34,000 jobs. During the same period, the company added 25,000 jobs overseas. Ironically, President Obama chose Immelt to head his Jobs Council.
According to establishment Repub¬licans, none of this can be helped. We are losing middle-class jobs because of the move to a high-tech world that creates jobs for a cognitive elite and destroys them for everyone else. But that doesn’t describe what’s happening. We are losing middle-class jobs, but lower-class jobs are expanding. Automation is changing the way we make cars, but the rich still need their maids and gardeners. Middle-class jobs are also lost as a result of regulatory and environmental barriers, especially in the energy sector. And the skills-based technological change argument is entirely implausible: countries that beat us hands down on mobility are just as technologically advanced. Folks in Denmark aren’t exactly living in the Stone Age.

This is why voters across the spectrum began to demand radical change. What did the Republican elite offer in response? At a time of maximal crisis they have been content with minimal goals, like Mitt Romney’s 59-point plan in 2012. How many Americans remember even one of those points? What we remember instead is Romney’s remark about 47 percent of Americans being takers. That was Romney’s way of recognizing the class divide—and in the election, Americans took notice and paid him back with interest.
Since 2012, establishment Republicans have continued to be less than concerned for the plight of ordinary Americans. Sure, they want economic growth, but it doesn’t seem to matter into whose pockets the money flows. There are even the “conservative” pundits who offer the pious hope that drug-addicted Trump supporters will hurry up and die. That’s one way to ameliorate the class struggle, but it doesn’t exactly endear anyone to the establishment.

The southern writer Flannery O’Connor once attended a dinner party in New York given for her and liberal intellectual Mary McCarthy. At one point the issue of Catholicism came up, and McCarthy offered the opinion that the Eucharist is “just a symbol,” albeit “a pretty one.” O’Connor, a pious Catholic, bristled: “Well, if it’s just a symbol, to Hell with it.” Likewise, the principles held up as sacrosanct by establishment Republicans might be logically unassailable, derived like theorems from a set of axioms based on a pure theory of natural rights. But if I don’t see them making people better off, I say to Hell with them. And so do the voters this year. What the establishment Republicans should ask themselves is Anton Chigurh’s question in No Country for Old Men: If you followed your principles, and your principles brought you to this, what good are your principles?

September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9 • Frank Buckley

Had Marx been asked what would happen to America if it ever became economically immobile, we know what his answer would be: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And also Donald Trump. The anger expressed by the voters in 2016—their support for candidates from far outside the traditional political class—has little parallel in American history. We are accustomed to protest movements on the Left, but the wholesale repudiation of the establishment on the Right is something new. All that was solid has melted into air, and what has taken its place is a kind of right-wing Marxism, scornful of Washington power brokers and sneering pundits and repelled by America’s immobile, class-ridden society.

Establishment Republicans came up with the “right-wing Marxist” label when House Speaker John Boehner was deposed, and labels stick when they have the ring of truth. So it is with the right-wing Marxist. He is right-wing because he seeks to return to an America of economic mobility. He has seen how broken education and immigration systems, the decline of the rule of law, and the rise of a supercharged regulatory state serve as barriers to economic improvement. And he is a Marxist to the extent that he sees our current politics as the politics of class struggle, with an insurgent middle class that seeks to surmount the barriers to mobility erected by an aristocratic New Class. In his passion, he is also a revolutionary. He has little time for a Republican elite that smirks at his heroes—heroes who communicate through their brashness and rudeness the fact that our country is in a crisis. To his more polite critics, the right-wing Marxist says: We are not so nice as you!

The right-wing Marxist notes that establishment Republicans who decry crony capitalism are often surrounded by lobbyists and funded by the Chamber of Commerce. He is unpersuaded when they argue that government subsidies are needed for their friends. He does not believe that the federal bailouts of the 2008-2012 TARP program and the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest and quantitative easing policies were justified. He sees that they doubled the size of public debt over an eight-year period, and that our experiment in consumer protection for billionaires took the oxygen out of the economy and produced a jobless Wall Street recovery.

The right-wing Marxist’s vision of the good society is not so very different from that of the JFK-era liberal; it is a vision of a society where all have the opportunity to rise, where people are judged by the content of their character, and where class distinctions are a thing of the past. But for the right wing Marxist, the best way to reach the goal of a good society is through free markets, open competition, and the removal of wasteful government barriers.

Readers of Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose will have encountered the word palimpsest, used to describe a manuscript in which one text has been written over another, and in which traces of the original remain. So it is with Canada, a country that beats the U.S. hands down on economic mobility. Canada has the reputation of being more liberal than the U.S., but in reality it is more conservative because its liberal policies are written over a page of deep conservatism.

Whereas the U.S. comes in at a highly immobile 0.47 on the Pew mobility scale, Canada is at 0.19, very close to Denmark’s 0.15. What is further remarkable about Canada is that the difference is mostly at the top and bottom of the distribution. Between the tenth and 90th deciles there isn’t much difference between the two countries. The difference is in the bottom and top ten percent, where the poorest parents raise the poorest kids and the richest parents raise the richest kids.

September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9 • Frank Buckley

For parents in the top U.S. decile, 46 percent of their kids will end up in the top two deciles and only 2 percent in the bottom decile. The members of the top decile comprise a New Class of lawyers, academics, trust-fund babies, and media types—a group that wields undue influence in both political parties and dominates our culture. These are the people who said yes, there is an immigration crisis—but it’s caused by our failure to give illegals a pathway to citizenship!

There’s a top ten percent in Canada, of course, but its children are far more likely to descend into the middle or lower classes. There’s also a bottom ten percent, but its children are far more likely to rise to the top. The country of opportunity, the country we’ve imagined ourselves to be, isn’t dead—it moved to Canada, a country that ranks higher than the U.S. on measures of economic freedom. Yes, Canada has its much-vaunted Medicare system, but cross-border differences in health care don’t explain the mobility levels. And when you add it all up, America has a more generous welfare system than Canada or just about anywhere else. To explain Canada’s higher mobility levels, one has to turn to differences in education systems, immigration laws, regulatory burdens, the rule of law, and corruption—on all of which counts, Canada is a more conservative country.

America’s K-12 public schools perform poorly, relative to the rest of the First World. Its universities are great fun for the kids, but many students emerge on graduation no better educated than when they arrived. What should be an elevator to the upper class is stalled on the ground floor. One study has concluded that if American public school students were magically raised to Canadian levels, the economic gain would amount to a 20 percent annual pay increase for the average American worker.

The U.S. has a two-tiered educational system: a superb set of schools and colleges for the upper classes and a mediocre set for everyone else. The best of our colleges are the best anywhere, but the average Canadian school is better than the average American one. At both the K-12 and college levels, Canadian schools have adhered more closely to a traditional, conservative set of offerings. For K-12, a principal reason for the difference is the greater competition offered in Canada, with its publicly-supported church-affiliated schools. With barriers like America’s Blaine Amendments—state laws preventing public funding of religious schools—lower-class students in the U.S. must enjoy the dubious blessing of a public school education.

What about immigration? Canada doesn’t have a problem with illegal aliens—it deports them. As for the legal intake, Canadian policies have a strong bias towards admitting immigrants who will confer a benefit on Canadian citizens. Even in absolute numbers, Canada admits more immigrants under economic categories than the U.S., where most legal immigrants qualify instead under family preference categories. As a result, on average, immigrants to the U.S. are less educated than U.S. natives, and unlike in Canada, second- and third-generation U.S. immigrants earn less than their native-born counterparts. In short, the U.S. immigration system imports inequality and immobility. If immigration isn’t an issue in Canada, that’s because it’s a system Trump voters would love.

For those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder who seek to rise, nothing is more important than the rule of law, property rights, and the sanctity of contract provided by a mature and efficient legal system. The alternative—in place today in America—is a network of elites whose personal bonds supply the trust that is needed before deals can be done and promises relied on. With its more traditional legal system, Canada better respects the sanctity of contract and is less likely to weaken property rights with an American-style civil justice system which at times resembles a slot machine of judicially-sanctioned theft. Americans are great at talking about the rule of law, but in reality we don’t have much standing to do so.

Then there’s corruption. As ranked by Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, America is considerably more corrupt than most of the rest of the First World. With our K Street lobbyists and our donor class, we’ve spawned the greatest concentration of money and influence ever. And corruption costs. In a regression model, the average family’s earnings would increase from $55,000 to $60,000 were we to ascend to Canada’s level of non-corruption, and to $68,000 if we moved to Denmark’s level.

In a corrupt country, trust is a rare commodity. That’s America today. Only 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time, down from 73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew Research Center. Sadly, that is a rational response to the way things are. America is a different country today, and a much nastier one. For politically engaged Republicans, the figure is six percent. That in a nutshell explains the Trump phenomenon and the disintegration of the Republican establishment. If the people don’t trust the government, tinkering with entitlement reform is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
American legal institutions are consistently more liberal than those in Canada, and they are biased towards a privileged class of insiders who are better educated and wealthier than the average American. That’s why America has become an aristocracy. By contrast, Canadian legal institutions aren’t slanted to an aristocracy.

The paradox is that Canadians employ conservative, free market means to achieve the liberal end of economic mobility. And that points to America’s way back: acknowledge that the promise of America has diminished, then emulate Canada.

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Jan 9 at 7:26 AM
His Legacy: Ignoring The Genocide Of Christians Over An 8 Year Period

By Capt Joseph R. John, January 9, 2017: 330

For 8 years Obama failed to condemn the genocide perpetrated by Al Q’ieda, ISIS, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who continued to butcher over 200,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christians. Current media reports state Obama is trying to salvage, what he calls, “His Legacy.” Obama will never be able to salvage “His Legacy”, because he turned a blind eye to the genocide that Al Q’ieda, ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist, and members of the MB perpetrated against Syrian and Assyrian Christians. Obama repeatedly ignored pleas by 56 US Congressmen, on both sides of the isle, to provide Christians families with small arms weapons to protect themselves.

Al Q’ idea, ISIS, and the MB crucified Christians, beheaded them, burned them alive, drowned them in cages, buried them alive, cut small children’s bodies in two, forced men to kneel in order to shoot them behind the head, and threw Christians from high buildings to their deaths. In the last 2 years, ISIS has perpetrated 143 “Radical Islamic Terrorists” attacks in 29 countries, murdering 2043 people in “Hate Crimes” and “Crimes Against Humanity”; those murderous acts were executed to prevent Christians from exercising their “Freedom of Religion.”

While Obama was ignoring the genocide in the Middle East, he minimized the 93 “Radica Islamic Terrorist” attacks in the United States (2/3rd of those attacks occurred in the last 4 years). Yet for 8 years, Obama refused to allow personnel in the White House, the National Security Agency, the CIA, the FBI, Department of Defense, the Justice Department, 17 Intelligence Agencies, the US Armed Forces, and the State Department to properly identify terrorists killing Americans, as “Radical Islamic Terrorists” nor did he allow Government Agencies to associate ISIS, MB, MB Front Groups, or Al Q’ieda with Islam.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called President Obama’s failure to protect persecuted Christians “abysmal.” He said Obama has had a distinct disinterest in including “Religious Freedom” and the “Genocide of Christians”, among his foreign policy priorities. Obama even left the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom vacant for nearly two years.

On September 30th, the New York Times reported on a leaked recording of Secretary of State John Kerry conversing with leaders of the Syrian opposition fighting Syria’s President, Bashar Assad. It cast light on Obama’s “Laisez Faire” attitude toward ISIS, and his continued minimization of the strength of the ISIS, which he referred to as a “JV Team”.

In 2012, Kerry indicated that Obama believed that allowing ISIS to grow in strength and receive weapons delivered from Libya would serve his objective of helping oust Syria’s President, Bashar Assad, without the need to employ US Military combat personnel on the ground. WikiLeaks E-mails back up Turkish President Erdogen’s assertion that the US has given support to terror groups, including ISIS in Syria.

In 2008, Obama said the reason he ignored the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Intelligence community, and pulled all US Military forces out of Iraq, was because there wasn’t a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Today there are nearly 5000 US Military combat personnel on the ground in Iraq, and hundreds of US Military combat personnel in Syria, and still there is no Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq (2 US Military combat personnel have been killed, and 14 were wounded in Syria in October).

According to the New York Times report on Kerry’s conversation with Assad’s Syrian opposition, Obama did not calculate that Assad would turn to Russia for military support, making ISIS’ opposition to his regime irrelevant. During the period when Obama was hoping ISIS would oppose Assad, ISIS genocide against Christians increased; Obama turned a blind eye to ISIS’ genocide and the rapid growth of ISIS from several thousand terrorists, to an multi-national trained force of over 50,000 “Radical Islamic Terrorists”.

Obama tried to minimize and ignore the growth in strength of what he called the ISIS “JV Team”. Obama’s continued minimization of ISIS resulted in 50 frustrated Central Command Intelligence Analyst co-signing a letter, protesting the fact that they were being pressured by Generals to produce intelligence reports that underestimate the true strength of ISIS and the danger ISIS’ Islamic State posed in the Middle East. Those Generals were, being pressured by their superiors in the Pentagon, to go along with Obama’s underestimated strength of ISIS.

In the last 8 years, while Obama occupied the Oval Office, ISIS easily grew rapidly because there were no longer a US Military force in Iraq, and it spread its tentacles into 29 countries, perpetrating over 8986 murders worldwide (1123/year), as well as the genocide of 200,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christians. In the previous 27 years Radical Islamic Terrorist murdered 4278 people worldwide (158/year).

In a 2013 Congressional hearings, evidence was presented from DIA intelligence reports that from 2011-2012, US Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens was shipping weapons from deposed Libyan Ruler, Muammar Gaddafi’s armory. Tons of weapons were being shipped from the port of Benghazi to Syria via Turkish ports, then on to the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Q’ieda, and ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists, who were opposing Bashar Assad.

It was another of Obama’s “Gun Running Operations”, following the “Fast and Furious Gun Running Operation” to Mexican Drug Cartels, that resulted in the death of a US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

An April 22, 2014 report entitled, “How America Changed Sides in the War On Terror”, identified Hakim Belhaj, as a key Al Q’ieda operative, was known Libyan terrorist who the European Union banned, and who was identified as the principal organizer of the Radical Islamic Terrorist attack on the US Mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2011, played a major role in moving Gaddafi’s weapons from US Ambassador Chris Stevens to the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Q’ieda, and ISIS in Syria.

The below listed comments and acts by Obama, reveals his state of mind, and why for 8 years, he refused to properly identify the terrorists killing Americans as “Radical Islamic Terrorists”, why he referred to ISIS as a “JV Team”, and why he refused to authorized the bombing of the Islamic State’s Capital of Raqqa (the Joint Chiefs recommended the strike, in order to decapitate the Islamic State’s leadership):

1) On ABC News Obama referenced—“My Muslim Faith.”

2) Obama wrote that in the event of a conflict—“I will stand with the Muslims.”

3) Obama refused to label the Ft Hood shooter who yelled “Allah Akbar” while he was killing 13 US soldiers as a “Terrorist.”

14) Obama said NASA’s “Foremost Mission” would be to develop an outreach to Muslim communities.

15) In an Islamic Dinner with Muslims, Obama said—“I am one of you.”

16) Obama followed the Muslim custom of not wearing any jewelry (rings/watches) for 8 years during Ramadan.

17) Obama said the Muslim call to worship is “The most beautiful sound on earth.”

18) For 8 years, in the Executive Office Building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, DC, silence was enforced during the five times of
Islamic prayer each day (25 minutes/day, 7 days/week). Prayer rugs and crescent moon symbols were made available in several
areas of the Executive Office Building for Muslims visitors and Muslims working in The White House.

Millions of unprotected Assyrian Christians living in their ancient ancestral homeland of Mesopotamia, on the Plains of Nineveh, and Syrian Christians living in Syria who have practiced their religion since Christ walked the surface of the earth, were butchered by Al Q’ieda, ISIS, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, while Obama ignored their repeated requests for small arms for the self-defense of their families.

Despite the repeated petitions by 56 US Congressmen from both sides of the isle, who pleaded with Obama to provide Syrian and Assyrian Christians with self-defensive small arms weapons, to protect their families from the on-going genocide by ISIS, Obama refused to authorize self-defensive aid. At the same time, Obama was accepting over 900,000 Middle East Muslim refugees, he refused to accept any of the over 300,000 Middle East Christians Refugees who fled from the genocide by “Radical Islamic Terrorist”.

The US Congress must terminate all funding for the UN Middle East and African “Muslin Only” Refugee Program, run by Muslims in the UN—it has been discriminating against Christian Refugees for the last 8 years, and is an ongoing violation of “Freedom of Religion” and US Law.

While the genocide of Christians in the Middle East continued, Obama brought in over 900,000 Middle East and African Muslin Refugees into the US, thru the UN Refugee Relief Program. They were settled in 187 cities throughout the US, at a cost of billions of US tax payer dollars, while Obama prevented the FBI from determining if they had terrorist ties. Obama refused to inform local and state elected government officials, and Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Officers where those Middle East and African Muslim Refugees were resettled.

For 8 years, the “Republican” and “Democratic” leaders in Congress, worked closely with Obama and the US Chamber of Commerce to ensure the wide open Southern Border remained open. For those 8 years “Radical Islamic Terrorists”. who have set up terrorist training camps just south of the US/Mexican border, were able to simply walk into the United States thru that wide open southern border.

The FBI has opened over 1000 “Radical Islamic Terrorist” cases in all 50 states, to apprehend and prosecute “Radical Islamic Terrorist” operating in the United States. To date the FBI has disrupted and prosecuted over 100 “Radical Islamic Terrorist” potential attacks within the United States, resulting in the arrests and prosecutions of 180 “Radical Islamic Terrorists.”

Despite the 180 arrests, there have been 93 ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks within the United States by Muslim Refugees from the Middle East and Africa and/or from their off springs; 2/3rd of those attacks occurred in the last 4 years. Those attacks and threats of attacks have been covered up by the left of center liberal media establishment working very closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups, and the Obama administration. The attachment details many, but not all of those “Radical Islamic Terrorist” attacks initiated in the United States, that resulted in the death of hundreds of Americans Citizens on US soil.

Please review the below listed article to fully understand the “Step by Step” procedure Obama and Hillary Clinton followed to incubate ISIS “Radical Islamic Terrorists”, that allowed ISIS to grow and gain in strength.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

WND EXCLUSIVE
STEP BY STEP: HOW HILLARY, OBAMA INCUBATED ISIS
Jerome R. Corsi
NEW YORK – By piecing together recently revealed WikiLeaks emails with evidence that has emerged over the past several years, it’s become increasingly clear that President Obama and his secretary of state at the time, Hillary Clinton in 2011, armed the Free Syrian Army rebels in an effort to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad, mirroring a strategy already under way in Libya to help al-Qaida-affiliated militia overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. A consequence of the strategy was the emergence of ISIS out of the loosely coordinated Free Syrian Army coalition as well as the disastrous Benghazi attack in which a U.S. ambassador was murdered.

Various WikiLeaks emails examined by WND indicate the Free Syrian Army was among the first splinter rebel groups Clinton and Obama armed. The Obama administration apparently was hoping to replicate the regime-change strategy in which it armed al-Qaida-affiliated militia in Libya, including Ansar al-Sharia, the group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack at Benghazi.

The WikiLeaks email evidence shows a shift in policy in which Clinton and Obama appear to have decided in 2011 to topple the governments of Gadhafi in Libya and Assad in Syria, even if it meant arming “Radical Islamic Terrorist” groups that traced back to al-Qaida.

As WND reported last week, WikiLeaks emails back up Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s assertion that U.S.-led coalition forces have given support to terror groups, including ISIS in Syria.

The claim derived further support from a recording leaked to the New York Times of Secretary of State John Kerry admitting the Obama administration not only hoped ISIS would depose the Assad regime, it also gave arms to the jihadist army and its allies to carry out the task.

Blumenthal recommends Free Syria Army to Clinton

Hacked emails to Hillary Clinton from longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal that were published in October by WikiLeaks tell the story.

On June 20, 2011, Blumenthal sent a confidential email to Clinton at the State Department that included an article by David W. Lesch, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Trinity University in San Antonio. Lesch argued a strategy of regime change could be effected in Syria if the U.S. could find opposition groups in Syria capable of establishing “a Benghazi-like refuge from which to launch a rebellion and to which aid can be sent.”

In a subsequent confidential email July 24, 2012, Blumenthal further advised Clinton that the “growing success of the rebel forces of the Free Syria Army” caused him to believe the Assad regime was increasingly vulnerable to being toppled.

In an email Feb. 24, 2012, Blumenthal characterized the FSA as “loosely organized and uncoordinated,” noting it was “for the most part, local militias, many of them civilian based, that are simply calling themselves the FSA to appear to be part of a whole.”

Blumenthal commented in the email that the armed resistance to Assad “is not well funded or well armed.”

On Feb. 28, 2012, Jacob Sullivan, a State Department senior policy adviser to Secretary Clinton, forwarded to Clinton an opinion piece published in the New York Times by foreign correspondent Roger Cohen suggesting the strategy Obama and Clinton had used to topple Gadhafi in Libya should be used to bring down Assad in Syria.

“As the Bosnian war showed, the basis for any settlement must be a rough equality of forces. So I say step up the efforts, already quietly ongoing, to get weapons to the Free Syrian Army. Train those forces, just as the rebels were trained in Libya,” Cohen wrote. “Payback time has come around: The United States warned Assad about allowing Al Qaeda fighters to transit Syria to Iraq. Now matériel and special forces with the ability to train a ragtag army can transit Iraq – and other neighboring states – into Syria.”

Then, on Sept. 18, 2012, one week after the Benghazi terror attack, Blumenthal, in a confidential memo, alerted Clinton to the possibility of the FSA military taking over Damascus.

The prospect caused Assad’s wife and close relatives to urge Assad to flee Syria to avoid “the fate of Assad’s former ally Muammar al Qaddafi of Libya, who was captured and killed by rebel forces while attempting to flee his home territory in Sirte.”

Clinton sought to arm Free Syrian Army

In an Aug. 17, 2014, email released by WikiLeaks, Clinton, after her service as secretary of state, suggested to adviser John Podesta: “At the same time, we should return to plans to provide the FSA [Free Syrian Army], with some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime.”

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute, tied the statement to the Obama administration’s plan to equip Syrian fighters, either the Free Syrian Army or “other moderate forces,” to a U.S.-led operation in coordination with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to steer weapons to Syria, “ostensibly to fight both Assad and ISIS.”

McCarthy noted, however, that Clinton’s 2014 memo to Podesta asserted the Saudi and Qatari governments both supported ISIS and other “radical Sunni groups.”

In September 2013, WND reported Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had relied on the work of Elizabeth O’Bagy, a 26-year-old graduate student, to argue in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Obama administration should send weapons to arm the “moderate” Free Syrian Army to oppose the Assad government in Syria.

In that article, WND detailed the extensive lobbying efforts conducted in Washington to advance the FSA as a “moderate group,” despite clear evidence the al-Nusra Front – operating under the FSA umbrella – had been declared a terrorist organization by the State Department; had pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri; and was the group of choice for foreign jihadi fighters pouring into Syria.

Clinton ‘changed sides in war on terror’

WND reported in 2015 the Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Hillary Clinton “changed sides in the war on terror” in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Gadhafi, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi concluded in its interim report.

The April 22, 2014, report, “How America Changed sides in the War on Terror,” alleges “the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the Al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion.”

The report asserted the agenda of al-Qaida-affiliated jihadis in the region, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces, was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.

“The rebels made no secret of their Al Qaeda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic jihad, according to author John Rosenthal and multiple media reports,” the interim report said. “And yet, the White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress Al Qaeda.”

The report concluded: “The result in Libya, across much of North Africa, and beyond has been utter chaos, disruption of Libya’s oil industry, the spread of dangerous weapons (including surface-to-air missiles), and the empowerment of jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The report identified a key al-Qaida operative who played a major role moving U.S. arms into both Libya and Syria as Abdul Hakim Belhaj, (aka Abdallah al Sadeq). Belhaj was a veteran jihad fighter of Iraq and Afghanistan; commander of the al-Qaida franchise militia, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), aka Libyan Islamic Movement for Change; a post-revolution military commander of Tripoli; and the Libyan delegation leader to the Free Syrian Army in late 2011.

In September 2014, WND reported Elizabeth O’Bagy, who had been fired from her job with a Washington think-tank after her exposure by WND as a source for Kerry’s argument that the FSA is a “moderate” rebel force in Syria, had also arranged for McCain a trip to Syria in May 2013 in which senator met with Belhaj, who was then represented as a leader of the FSA.

In November 2013, WND reported trusted Libyan expatriates had claimed Belhaj was at large in Libya. The expatriates identified Belhaj as an al-Qaida operative, noting he was at the top of a list of Libyan terrorists banned by the European Union from obtaining entrance visas and was the principal organizer of the terrorist attack in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2011, in which Ambassador Stevens was murdered.
McCarthy reported Aug. 2 Ambassador Stevens had “moved an enormous shipment of weapons from Benghazi to the Syrian ‘rebels’ in Turkey,” as the Obama administration was working in 2011 to determine which Syrian “rebel” forces should be armed.

McCarthy pointed to a New York Times article in 2012, some three months before the Benghazi massacre, that reported CIA operatives were secretly in Turkey helping the Obama administration to decide which Syrian opposition fighters would receive arms clandestinely from the United States to fight the Syrian government.

The Times further reported the weapons including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons were being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries, including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

McCarthy further noted that before becoming ambassador, Christopher Stevens was the Obama administration’s official liaison to Gadhafi’s Islamist opposition in Libya, including its al-Qaida-linked groups. Among them were the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, with Stevens working directly with Belhaj.

Below is a partial list of Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists who have perpetrated Terrorist Attacks against American citizens—the partial list is truly unbelievable, and the Obama administration and the left of center liberal media establishment have done their best to cover up every one of those terrorist attacks for 8 years—it is part of a continuing criminal conspiracy that is damaging the National Security Interest of the United States!!!

The left of center liberal media establishment is working hand in glove with Obama, to covering up the fact that there have been 93 Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. To date, 100 ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist plots have been foiled by the FBI, resulting in the arrests of over 180 ISIS Muslim Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists by the FBI across the United States, and there are 1000 FBI ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist cases under investigation in all 50 states. We encourage all American citizens to put pressure on their Congress to pass the Terrorist Refugee Infiltration Act, and to get the Republican Leaders in Congress to finally do something after 8 years to protect American citizens and their children from Radical Islamic Terrorists.
The below “partial list” of the Muslim Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists who have participated in Jihad killings and attacks against the American citizens since Obama took office—are only listed, because the complete numbers of Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks are just too many, to all be listed here.
There are now over 900 open cases on potential ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists in all 50 states being prosecuted by the FBI, those terrorist are a percentage of the 900,000+ Muslim Refugees Obama forced fed into 180 cities resettling them throughout the US thru the UN Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program while ignoring FBI warnings that they cannot vet them to determine if they have terrorist ties. Now we find out that Obama had his appointees at DHS scrub clean the data base of hundreds of Radical Islamic Terrorist suspects they maintained records on—that was a conspiracy that damaged the national Security of the United States:
• On January 7, 2016, Aws Mohammad Younis Al-Jayab, a Palestine born Iraqi, was arrested in Sacramento, CA on charges of assisting jihadi organizations.
• In an unrelated case, also on January 7, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan, an Iraqi Refugee, was arrested in Houston, TX on charges of providing material support to ISIS and going thru terrorist training.
• In Philadelphia, PA, a jihadi opened fire on a cop on January 8, 2016. He fired 13 shots and hit the police officer three times, grievously wounding the man.
• On January 11, 2016, Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions said the number of people implicated in radical Islamic terrorist plots in the U.S. has jumped to 113.
• On January 16, 2016, Mohamed Elmi, 31, and Mohamed Salad, 29, both of Calgary,
Canada, were arrested after they invaded the doorway of a neighborhood bar and grievously wounded a 38-year old stranger.

• On February 16, 2016, a court magistrate ruled after hearing the FBI testimony that Khalil Abu-Rayyan, a 21 year old Dearborn, MI man was too much of a threat to public safety and ordered him held without bail. He gets excited by thoughts of beheading Americans, burning people alive and throwing homosexuals off of tall buildings. He’d actually made plans to shoot up a 6,000 member Christians in Detroit, in conversations with an undercover FBI agent.. (If I) can’t go do jihad at the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here.” He also told the agent that “shooting and death make me excited. I love to hear people begging and screaming. … I wish I had my gun.” The FBI claims Abu-Rayyan has since late 2014 used Twitter for “retweeting, liking and commenting” on Islamic State propaganda.
•
On February 12, 2016 a machete wielding assailant known to the FBI, identified as Mohammad Barry, a Somali living in Ohio attacked Jewish and Christian patrons at a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, wounding four people. Witnesses said it was carnage. Some of the patrons fought back by throwing chairs. Police later shot and killed Barry after a short chase. Investigators are trying to determine if Barry attacked the Nazareth Restaurant because he thought the owner was Jewish. In actuality, the restaurant is owned by an Israeli Christian.

• On January 7, 2016, Aws Mohammad Younis Al-Jayab, a Palestine born Iraqi, was arrested in Sacramento, CA on charges of assisting jihadi organizations.
•
• On June 12, 21016, Omar Saddiqul Mateen, the son of Afghan refugees, massacred 49 gentle & innocent Americans, and wounded 53 others, in the Orlando night club, Pulse, in the deadliest mass shooting in US history

• In an unrelated case, also on January 7, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan, an Iraqi Refugee, was arrested in Houston, TX on charges of providing material support to ISIS and going thru terrorist training.
• In Philadelphia, PA, a jihadi opened fire on a cop on January 8, 2016. He fired 13 shots and hit the police officer three times, grievously wounding the man.
• On January 11, 2016, Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions said the number of people implicated in radical Islamic terrorist plots in the U.S. has jumped to 113.
• On January 16, 2016, Mohamed Elmi, 31, and Mohamed Salad, 29, both of Calgary,
Canada, were arrested after they invaded the doorway of a neighborhood bar and grievously wounded a 38-year old stranger.
• On February 16, 2016, a court magistrate ruled after hearing the FBI testimony that Khalil Abu-Rayyan, a 21 year old Dearborn, MI man was too much of a threat to public safety and ordered him held without bail. He gets excited by thoughts of beheading Americans, burning people alive and throwing homosexuals off of tall buildings. He’d actually made plans to shoot up a 6,000 member Christians in Detroit, in conversations with an undercover FBI agent.. (If I) can’t go do jihad at the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here.” He also told the agent that “shooting and death make me excited. I love to hear people begging and screaming. … I wish I had my gun.” The FBI claims Abu-Rayyan has since late 2014 used Twitter for “retweeting, liking and commenting” on Islamic State propaganda.
•
On February 12, 2016 a machete wielding assailant known to the FBI, identified as Mohammad Barry, a Somali living in Ohio attacked Jewish and Christian patrons at a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, wounding four people. Witnesses said it was carnage. Some of the patrons fought back by throwing chairs. Police later shot and killed Barry after a short chase. Investigators are trying to determine if Barry attacked the Nazareth Restaurant because he thought the owner was Jewish. In actuality, the restaurant is owned by an Israeli Christian

• On May 3, 2015 an attack with gunfire was carried by two Radical Islamic Terrorists followers of ISIS at the entrance to the Curtis Culwell Center, in Garland, TX featuring cartoon images of Mohammad—both were shot and killed by a police officer. Just prior to the attack one of the gunmen posted “May Allah accept us as Mujahedeen”—he wrote both pledged allegiance to “Amirul Mu’mineen”, a likely reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
• An immigrant from Ghana, who applied for and received US citizenship, pledged allegiance to ISIS and plotted a terrorist attack on the US soil (June 2015).
• An immigrant from Sudan, who applied and received US citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage Jihad on its behalf after having been recruited on line(June 2015).
• In November 17, 2015 A Uzbek Muslim refugee in Boise, ID was convicted of plotting to bomb US military bases.
• On August 14, 2015 three Somali Muslims, Mohamud Mohamed, 36, and Osman Sheikh, 31, Abil Teshome, 23, brutally beat and murdered Freddy Akoa, 49 a Christian in Portland, ME. The attack allegedly took place over the span of several hours, in which Akoa suffered cuts and bruises all over his body, a lacerated liver and 22 rib fractures. However, according to the autopsy, Akoa died as a result of blows to his head.
• Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered five US Armed Forces (1 Navy and 4 Marines) in Chattanooga, TN in July 2015. Mohammad was an immigrant brought here by his family from Kuwait at a young age, and who was later approved for U.S. citizenship, who carried out the Islamist attack that killed the 5 military personnel in Chattanooga.
• The Somali refugee who recruited the San Bernardino killers also recruited the jihadist who attacked the Garland, TX “Draw Mohammad” contest in May 2015, fled the United States.
• An Iraqi immigrant, who later applied for and received US citizenship, was arrested for lying to federal agents about pledging allegiance to ISIS and his travel to Syria (May 2015)
• An immigrant from Syria, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was accused by federal prosecutors of planning to rob a gun store to “go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.” (April 2015)
• Six Somalian Muslim refugees were arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota for attempting to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS.
• Five Muslim refugees (same family) were arrested in Missouri, Illinois and New York for sending arms and cash to ISIS.
• Five Somali Muslim refugees were charged in July 2014 with fundraising for jihadi groups in Africa.
• On December 14, 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, born to a Muslim African American family, executed two NYC police officers as they sat in their patrol car. Brinsley is reported to have approached the two officers as they were sitting in their patrol car in the notorious crime ridden Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, New York and began firing rounds into the vehicle before fleeing on foot to the closest subway station where he later committed suicide.
• Two Bosnian Muslim refugee in Portland, Oregon was arrested in November 21, 2014 for trying to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
• On November 4, 2015 18 year old Faisal Mohammad who had a black ISIS flag in his possessions and a terrorist manifesto, stabbed 4 of his fellow student at U C Merced; police had to shoot him to stop his stabbing spree. He had pro-ISIS propaganda on his computer. The FBI said he was self radicalized.
• In San Bernardino in December 2015 two Middle East Radical Islamic Terrorist, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, who said they were ISIS, attackers (immigrants) killed 14 civilians and wounded 21 others, were recruited to their jihad by a Muslim Somali refugee who has now moved to Syria, but continues to recruit Jihadist in America using social media.
• A refugee from Uzbekistan was convicted of providing material support and money to a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to the Department of Justice, he also procured bomb-making materials in the interest of perpetrating a terrorist attack on American soil. (August 2015)
• An immigrant from Albania, who applied for and received Lawful Permanent Resident status, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for giving over $1,000 to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, and for attempting to join a radical jihadist insurgent group in Pakistan. (August 2015)
• An immigrant from Egypt, who subsequently was granted U.S. citizenship, was charged with providing, and conspiring to provide, material support to ISIS, for aiding and abetting a New York college student in receiving terrorist training from ISIS, and conspiring to receive such training. (August 2015)
• A second Immigrant from India, who is married to a US citizen, who was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide thousands of dollars to Al Q’ieda in the Arabian Peninsula, in order to assist them in their global Jihad, and on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (November 2015)
• A Kazakhstani immigrant with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS. (February 2015)
• An immigrant from Pakistan, who entered the United States on a fiancé visa thru Canada, and subsequently became a Lawful Permanent Resident, along with her husband, killed 14 people at a Christmas Party in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015 , and wounded 22 others, in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.
• A Somali-American was arrested after encouraging several friends to leave the United States and join ISIS, and giving one individual over $200 for their passport application. (December 2015)
• The son of Pakistani immigrants, along with his Pakistan bride, murdered 14 coworkers, and wounded two dozen, in that same terrorist attack. His Pakistani-born father has since been placed on the no-fly list (December 2015).
• A Bosnian refugee, along with his wife and five others, donated money and supplies, and smuggled arms, to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. (February 2015)
• An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs. (July 2015)
• An immigrant from Saudi Arabia, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, swore allegiance to ISIS and pledged to explode a propane tank bomb on U.S. soil. (April 2015).
• An immigrant from Yemen, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, along with six other men, was charged with conspiracy to travel to Syria and to provide material support to ISIS. (April 2015).
• A Uzbek man in Brooklyn encouraged other Uzbeki nationals to wage jihad on behalf of ISIS, and raised $1,600 for the terror organization. (April 2015)
• An immigrant from Bangladesh, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States. (June 2014)
• In September 30, 2014, Alton Nolan, a proponent of Sharia and suspect Radical Islamic Terrorist, beheaded an employee of Vaughan Foods, and was prevented from beheading a second employee in Moor, Oklahoma.
• An immigrant from Afghanistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, and a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, were convicted for “join Al Q’ieda and the Taliban in order to kill Americans.” (September 2014)
• A Somali immigrant with lawful permanent resident status, along with four other Somali nationals, is charged with leading an al-Shabaab fundraising conspiracy in the United States, with monthly payments directed to the Somali terrorist organization. (July 2014)
• A Moroccan national who came to the U.S. on a student visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and a federal court house. (April 2014)
• The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; those brothers and their family were Muslim refugees. -The Boston Bombers were granted political asylum and were thus deemed legitimate refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship. (April 2013)
• A college student who immigrated from Somalia, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. (December 2013)
• On February 18, 2012, two Radical Islamic Terrorists from Pakistan, who later applied for and received US Citizenship, were apprehended trying to detonate a bomb in New York City
• In September 15, 2012, Amine El Khalifi, and al Q’ieda Radical Islamic Terrorist plotted to do a suicide bombing of the US Capital.
• In 2011 Mohammad Alfatlawi a proponent of Sharia Law was charged with the “Honor Killing” of his wife and daughter in Detroit, Michigan.
• In May 4, 2010 Faisal Shahzad conducted a terrorist car bombing plot in Times Square that failed.
• On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam, who had gone to Yemen in 2007 and stayed for about 16 months, open fire on a Little Rock, Arkansas US Armed Forces Recruiting Office in a drive by shooting with a rifle, against a group of US Army Soldiers standing in front of the Recruiting Office. He killed Private William Long and wounded Private Quinton Ezeagwula.
• On November 5, 2009, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling “Allah Akbar” at the top of his lungs—Obama insisted it was simply “Work Place Violence” and not a Radical Islamic terrorist attack by a disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Prior to the shooting, in his previous assignment as an intern and resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center his colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his behavior and anti-American comments—but because they were cowered by the Obama’s administration’s warnings and perceived threats to their military standing, that they better be “politically correct’ and not disparage such anti-American comments—nothing was done to drum that Radical Islamic Terrorist out of the US Armed Forces
• In December 2009, the bombing terror plot to kill 290 innocent passengers on a flight from the Netherland to Detroit the Nigerian Radical Islamic Terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutlallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) failed to detonate on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 because the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned, and passengers were able to subdue him until he was arrested.
• Two Al Qaeda members who had killed American soldiers in Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2009 – and, both were refugees!

December 7, 2016: The 75th Anniversary of the Sneak Attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor

The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by the Imperial Forces of Japan, executed by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s strike plan “Z”, commenced at 7:48 AM Hawaiian Time. The base was attacked by 353 Imperial Japanese fighters, bomber, and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six Japanese aircraft carriers. All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four sunk. All but the USS Arizona (BB-39) were later raised, and six were returned to service and went on to fight the Imperial Forces of Japan in the WWII. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship, and one minelayer. In addition 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,403 Americans were killed and 1,178 others were wounded. However, important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light; 29 aircraft and five midget submarines were lost, and 64 servicemen killed. One Japanese sailor, Kazuo Sakamaki, was captured.

In the wake of the attack, 15 Medal Of Honor, 51 Navy Crosses, 53 Silver Stars, 4 Navy and Marine Corps Medals, one Distinguished Flying Cross, four Distinguished Service Crosses, one Distinguished Service Medal, and three Bronze Star Medals were awarded to the American servicemen who distinguished themselves in combat at Pearl Harbor. Additionally, a special military award, the Pearl Harbor Commemorative medal was later authorized for all military veterans of the attack

Japan’s Prime Minister’s Will Visit Pearl Harbor Today

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced he would travel to Pearl Harbor today, to recognize the 75th Anniversary of Japan’s attack on the home port of the, US Navy’s Pacific Fleet. Prime Minister Abe is the first Japanese leader to visit Pearl Harbor to “pay tribute [and] comfort the souls” of those who died from both countries during World War II. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said that Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor “awoke a sleeping giant”. The attack was labeled “A Day of Infamy” by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In the next 3 years, 7 months, and 25 days, the US Armed Forces and their Allies in the Pacific Theatre, defeated the Imperial Forces of Japan. On September 2, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur, USMA ’03, USA, representing the Combined Allied Forces, accepted the “Unconditional Surrender” of the Imperial Forces of Japan aboard the USS Missouri (BB-63) in Tokyo Bay.

Pearl Harbor – 75 years on

In the below listed Op Ed, by Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. USNA ’52, USN (Ret), who was the Commander–in-Chief, of the US Pacific Fleet, and the Senior US Military Representative to the United Nations, exposes the US military personnel who were responsible for failing to alert Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, and Lt. General Walter Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii, of the pending attack by Japan, were accused of dereliction of duty following the attack. Admiral Kimmel was reduced in rank to Rear Admiral, and retired from the US Navy. Lt General Short was reduced in rank to Major General and retired from the US Army. Admiral Lyons recommends in the below listed Op Ed that Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short have their honor, reputations, and ranks restored by Congress.

The 75th anniversary of the Imperial Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor will soon be remembered again as a “Day of Infamy.” On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan launched over 353 aircraft from six carriers, flawlessly executing Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto’s strike plan “Z” and succeeded in crippling the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

How could the commanders in Hawaii be so unprepared when in Washington both the Army and Navy intelligence organizations had broken key Japanese diplomatic codes, including the high level “Purple” code in which Japan was conducting its peace negotiations with the United States? Whether the Japanese naval code “JN-25” was broken prior to the attack remains unknown.

In their new book, “A Matter of Honor,” by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, the authors provide information never before revealed. The authors make the case for restoring the personal reputation, honor and ranks of the two Pearl Harbor commanders who were unjustly made the scapegoats.

The second new book, “Into the Lion’s Mouth” by Larry Loftis, discusses the most successful British double agent, “Dusko Popov,” the real life inspiration for Ian Fleming’s James Bond and Popov’s relationship to Pearl Harbor. In short, the Japanese were fascinated by the British surprise airstrike at Taranto, which destroyed the Italian Fleet primarily by dropping torpedoes in relatively shallow water. They prepared questions and passed them to Germany who in turn gave them to Popov. He turned them over to the FBI on his arrival in New York in August 1941. The U.K. raid on Taranto became the blueprint for the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Mr. Loftis contends that J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI Director, never turned over the questions to the military or to the president. Former CIA Director William Casey made the same charges in 1988 and blamed Hoover for failing to share the information with the military. However, according to Mr. Summers and Ms. Swan, Hoover did turn over paraphrased versions of the question to military intelligence who failed to recognize the significance of this information.

Of the eight official inquiries, the most biased conducted was by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts shortly following the attack. Neither Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, or Lt. Gen. Walter Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii, received any information from the decrypted codes which would have alerted them to the Japanese fleet’s intentions. Yet the Roberts commission declared Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short derelict in carrying their duties and held them solely responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. None of the 10 Washington officials authorized to receive the decrypted information was held accountable. Cover up?

The Washington officials authorized to receive the decrypted “Purple” intelligence, referred to as “Magic,” included the Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall; Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark; Chief of Navy War Plans RADM Richmond K. Turner; Brig. Gen. Gerow; head of Army War Plans; heads of both Army and Navy Intelligence, Secretary of War (Army) Stimson; Secretary of Navy Knox; the president and the Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

The president only saw brief summaries of “Magic” decoded information and at times only received verbal briefings. Further, Marshall and Stark at one point denied the president and secretary of State any “Magic” information for four months because they didn’t trust people around them. Of course, one person who did see Magic was Winston Churchill. The U.S. provided three “Purple” machines to the U.K. to facilitate their breaking of the code. Another machine went to the U.S. Army and two went to the Navy. Interesting, one “Purple” machine was sent to the naval station CAST at Cavite in the Philippines for use by Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Harold Hart. Astonishingly, none were provided to the Hawaii Commanders Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short. What use MacArthur made of the Purple intelligence is unknown. Further, he was unprepared for the Japanese attack that destroyed our FAREAST Air Force at Clark AFB nine hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was never held accountable.

One other aspect that is seldom mentioned is that the Dutch Army cryptanalysts had also broken the Japanese diplomatic code “Purple.” According to Brig. Gen. Elliot Thorpe, USA (ret.) when he was the army attaché in Java, Gen. Tec Pooten, CINC of Far East Dutch Army, provided him a decrypted message from Tokyo to the Japanese Ambassador in Bangkok which told of the upcoming attack on Hawaii, Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand. After sending four messages about the upcoming attack, Thorpe as he recalled was directed by our War Department to send “no more on this subject.”

“Magic” decrypted information held a wealth of information. There was the “bomb plot” grid message #83 of Sept. 24, 1941, which divided the fleet anchorages in Pearl Harbor into bombing sectors. We also had the Nov. 30, 1941 message to designated Japanese Embassies to destroy their codes, files, etc. Washington cleared officials also had the 14-part message on Dec. 6 1941, the Japanese response to the secretary of State’s Nov. 26 ultimatum, ceasing all negotiations to which President Roosevelt remarked, “This means war.” Yet none of this critical intelligence was passed to the Hawaii Commanders. As an aside, Churchill was getting much of this information as well. We do know it was his goal to involve “isolationist” America in the war.

The three principals that should have been held accountable were Gen. Marshall, Adm. Stark and Adm. Turner, who assumed responsibility for distributing the decrypted information for the Navy. It clearly is time for Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short to have their honor, reputations and ranks restored. It is a matter of honor for the Navy, Army, and country to correct this terrible injustice.

• James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

[Personal note on this: for over 40 years I have been a proponent of the position that FDR withheld information for the purposes of involving the U.S.A. in the war and to get himself out of the Great Depression. The first purpose is self-evident. However, few know that FDR kept the U.S. in the depression for longer than necessary by, among several wrongful acts, allowing the dollar to become the global currency, and by fixing the dollar to gold during this economic crisis instead of letting it float. By 1938, most of Europe was out of the depression as they prepared for war. FDR did not. Instead, this stalwart liberal insisted on domestic policies that included the National Recovery Act, unconstitutional on its face, called the Negro Ruination Act by integrationists. The NRA permitted businesses to fire colored employees before firing white employees, just one of many discriminatory and crony features. JPB]

For a political party that loves to label their opponents as bigots, it’s remarkable how bigoted the Obama administration has been for the last 8 years against Christian religious teachings and Christians in the US Armed Forces who can’t fight back. Christians who have deep religious convictions also have their well held and sincere religious beliefs with regard to abortion, homosexuality, males using girls bathrooms & showers in schools, and have their opposition to teaching very young & innocent grammar school students about homosexuality. According to former counter-terrorism training officer and American police detective George Tobias, in the below listed article, the Clinton administration would continue Obama’s bigotry toward Christians,”

The latest WikiLeaks dump of John Podesta E-mails shows that the Obama administration kept a list of high-profile Muslims it wanted to appoint to top Obama administration jobs, sub-cabinet jobs, outside boards, agencies, and policy committees. The 2008 E-mails reveal that it wasn’t enough to be Arab American, you had to be Arab and Muslim to make it onto Obama’s list.

“Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian,” notes one E-mail written by Preeta Bansal, who worked on the Obama transition team headed by John Podesta. John Podesta is now Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign Chairman. “In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of an unacceptable religion (esp. Christian).”

In another indication of outright the bigotry against Christians by the Obama administration, a law suit was filed against DHS by the Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center, a progressive liberal advocacy organization. Heartland is “dedicated to ensuring human rights protections” for immigrants and asylum seekers—including apparently for terrorists. Heartland filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for discriminating against Syrian and Assyrian Christian refugees for the last 5 years.

In an otherwise unremarkable opinion, obtained after filing, a Federal Freedom of Information Act request, a Federal Appellate Court Judge issued a sharp rejoinder to the Obama administration over an issue that has been written about and broadcast in the national news media. The Appellate Judge said there was almost a complete lack of Syrian Christian refugees being brought into the US—the numbers are included in the below listed article.

The lawsuit also claimed that DHS was refusing to release the identity of Tier III terrorist organizations, unlike the identities of what are defined as Tier I and Tier II terrorist organizations that are publicly identified.

Tier III terrorist organizations “tend to be groups about which the U.S. government does not have good intelligence, making it essential that [DHS] be able to obtain information about them during screening interviews that are as focused and complete as possible.” Despite the lack of information, Obama refused to let the FBI interview entering Muslim refugees to determine if they had terrorist ties

To further reveal the bigotry against Christians practiced by Obama and Hillary’s State Department the following facts are submitted. Although ten percent of the population of Syria are Syrian and Assyrian Christian, yet despite that fact, less than one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian Refugees admitted to the United States over the last 8 years were Christian. Syrian and Assyrian Christians have been in desperate need of a safe haven from ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists who have been butchering, and slaughtering Christians for those 5 years.

ISIS has been crucifying Christians, burning them alive, drowning them in cages, beheading them, burying them alive, and making them kneel before shooting them in the back of their heads. Of the nearly 11,000 Syrian Refugees recently allowed to enter the United States by Obama, only 56 Christians were among them. The Greek Catholic Relief Agency has over 300,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christians in camps seeking entry into the US, but Obama has refused to let them enter the US for the last 5 years.

Few if any of the ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists are being held accountable for their heinous crimes against Syrian and Assyrian Christians. Besides slaughtering Syrian and Assyrian Christians, much of Iraq’s Christian community has been ripped from their ancient ancestral homes on the Plains of Nineveh. The ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists are also responsible for the destruction of their Christians’ cultural heritage symbols in their churches, ancient bibles, 2000 year old Christian churches, and Assyrian Christian monasteries. However, while Obama frets over Islamophobia, hardly anything is said about the horrors faced by the defenseless followers of Jesus Christ.

So while the Obama administration has brought in over 900,000+ Middle East Muslim Refugees into the US, and has resettled them in 187 cities throughout the United States, much less than ½ of 1 percent of the entering refugees were Christians. Obama has been concealing basic information about the entering Muslim refugees, behind a wall of government secrecy, and at the same time refusing to let the FBI interview entering Muslim refugees to determine if they have terrorist ties,

The 900,000+ Middle East Muslim Refugees that have been resettled throughout the US, without strict instruction to the resettling agencies not to inform elected local & state officials and their law enforcement agencies where those refugees are being placed. Despite the fact that the Syrian refugee crisis is the catalyst that was responsible for the infiltration ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists into Western Europe, resulting in many murderous Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks against unsuspecting Europeans. ISIS has openly bragged that the terrorists that they trained, would also be infiltrated into the United States.

Obama is threatening to veto the current Military Budget passed by Congress that is currently sitting on his desk awaiting his signature, because it protects Christians religious beliefs. Obama wants the absolute freedom to discriminate against Christian social service providers who interact with the government—all because many of those religious organizations are unable to endorse the LGBT cause, because of their well held religious teachings and beliefs. The Russell Amendment in the budget, authored by an endorsed Combat Veteran For Congress, Cong Steve Russell. LTC-USA (Ret) (R-OK-5), merely reaffirms the protection of Christians and Jewish members of the military, while clarifying that religious organizations (Jewish and Christian) have a right to employ people committed to authentically live and operate in accordance with their faith tenets. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already specifically protects a religious organizations’ ability to hire based on religion. In short, Christian and Jewish religious organizations are free to be religious organizations.

Obama’s previously violated the Religious Freedom of Chaplins who were refused the right to read letters to their congregations from the pulpit from their Cardinals (the very reason why the Pilgrims left England and migrated to America in 1620). That restriction imposed by Obama, not only violates the Chaplin’s Freedom of Religion, it also a violates their Freedom of Speech. When it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity policies Obama’s restrictions of the religious beliefs of members of the US Armed Forces is egregious. Obama is the first occupant of the Oval Office to refuse to guarantee Religious Freedom for members of the US Armed Forces.

By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to watch a video of Dinesh D’Souza, who was a Keynote Speaker at one of the Combat Veterans For Congress Patriotic Gala Events, defend Christianity from Obama’s oppression. Dinesh provides his “Words of Wisdom to Christians”, and details Obama’s and Hillary’s opposition to Freedom of Religion.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NewsWithViews.com
OBAMA, HILLARY AND MEDIA DISPLAY BIGOTRY AGAINST MIDDLE EASTERN CHRISTIANS
By Jim Kouri, CPP
September 7, 2016
President Barack Obama and his hopeful successor Hillary Clinton are continuing their open-door policy to Muslim refugees fleeing the turmoil in Syria, Iraq and other regions, but a number of American Christian organizations claim the two Democrat leaders have shown less sympathy for Syrian and Iraqi Christians.

In fact, of the 10,801 brought into the United States by the end of September, only 56 of them are listed as Christians (see numerical breakdown below). The vast majority of the Muslims are part of the Sunni sect, which is the one represented by the likes of Al Q’ida, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Al-Shabaab (Somalia) and others.
Religious Denomination Number of Refugees
Catholic 12
Christian 29
Greek Orthodox 1
Jehovah Witness 4
Muslim (unspecified) 90
Muslim (Shiite) 20
Muslim (Sunni) 10,612
No Religion 1
Orthodox 6
Other 5
Protestant 4
Yazidi 17

Religious denominations of the 10,801 Syrian Refuges who have been admitted into the United States since the Obama Administration’s announced plan to admit a n additional 11,000 Syrian refugees for FY2016 on September 10, 2015. Source: -Refugee Processing Center

“For a political party that loves to label their opponents as bigots, it’s remarkable how bigoted the current administration is and how bigoted the Clinton administration will continue to be against Christians,” said former counter-terrorism training officer and American police detective George Tobiaso.

According to several news reports from outlets in the United States and Europe, more than 70 mass graves were discovered in Iraq and Syria containing thousands of decaying bodies killed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other Islamic terrorist groups who buried the victims of their atrocities.

As many as 15,000 victims — men, women and children — slaughtered during the occupation of towns and villages by ISIS, a group known for executing Christians, may be buried in the sites across territory that was occupied by ISIS, Al Nusra Front or other radical Muslims.

According to the Homeland Security News Wire, “The [Associated Press] used satellite imagery, photos, and interviews, to find the location of seventeen mass graves in Syria and sixteen mass graves in Iraq – although the latter are in areas still too dangerous to excavate. AP says from 5,200 to more than 15,000 ISIS victims are buried in the graves it knows about.”

Few if any are being held accountable for the heinous crimes. Besides the killings, much of Iraq’s Christian community have been ripped from their ancestral homes in Nineveh. The jihadists are also responsible for the destruction of Christians’ cultural heritage. However, while Obama frets over Islamophobia, hardly anything is said about the horrors being faced by followers of Jesus Christ.

Many more mass graves may be found once Isis retreats after losing ground outside of Iraqi cities of Mosul and Raqqa which remain under jihadists’ control.

According to the watchdog group that’s known for its accuracy and diligence: Earlier this year Judicial Watch uncovered State Department records confirming that “Arab extremists” are entering the U.S. through Mexico with the assistance of smuggling network “cells.”

________________________________________
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.
He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores.

Sanctimony, Inc.
October 26, 2016 10:20 am / Leave a Comment / Megan Ring
by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review
Time was, leftists complained of rigged elections, the media paid attention to dirty tricks, and conservatives cared more about results than rhetoric.
Donald Trump, in characteristically muddled and haphazard fashion, said he thought the election might end up “rigged” (if he lost). Therefore, he would not endorse the November 8 result if he found that fear confirmed — unless, of course, in Jacksonian fashion, he managed to win.
All hell broke loose, from both the Left and principled conservatives, that Trump’s allegations had somehow undermined the American electoral process itself.
Not likely.

Questioning the integrity of election votes was a national pastime in 1824 (“corrupt bargain”), 1876 (“compromise of 1877”), and again in 1960. Bitching over losing, of course, is not the same thing as armed insurrection in the fashion of 1860, when furor erupted over Lincoln’s election.
Any candidate, whether feeding conspiracies or out of genuine concern for electoral misconduct, can say whatever he or she wishes, without the deleterious national consequences that pundits decry. Bad sportsmanship and manners are not synonymous with constitutional subversion.
“Selected, not elected” was a Democratic talking point after the 2000 Bush victory.In a speech two years after that election, a now sanctimonious Hillary Clinton echoed those “selected” charges against the Bush presidency. But so what?
In 2004, the trope that Ohio was rigged and thus cost John Kerry the election was standard liberal boilerplate. An embittered Kerry was the sore loser that Trump will be if he comes up short. Kerry’s friend columnist Mike Barnicle was quoted years later of Kerry’s inability to accept legitimate defeat: “For a long period, after 2004, every time he even half fell asleep, all he saw was voting machines in the state of Ohio.”
Let us hope that Trump does not become as unhinged as Al Gore became — for years, the former vice president could not speak publicly without screaming in vein-bulging style, and seemed to be obsessed by George W. Bush in Carthago delenda est fashion.
Indeed, in the last week after the Trump blunderbuss declaration, an entire mini industry has emerged, chronicling prior examples of Democrats questioning election results or alleging past evidence of voting fraud.
It would, of course, have been wiser for Trump to worry out loud about localized corruption, rather than to suggest in conspiratorial fashion that a nationwide cabal was devoted to rigging the election. But then again, we have rarely seen anything like the recent disclosures of pathetic efforts at massaging the vote. Trump’s sin was one of magnitude, not of mischaracterizing the intent or culpability of his opponents: He is right that many wish to corrupt the voting, but hardly certain that in the key battlegrounds they are powerful enough to sway an entire state’s vote count.
Recently disgraced and resigned Democratic operatives, who were in the pay of the Democratic National Committee (and one of whom was a very frequent visitor to the Obama White House), boast on tape not only of disrupting Trump rallies by bought and staged violence but also of busing non-resident voters into Ohio to affect the vote count; they further brag that their dirty tricks are longstanding practice.
Is the charge of voting subversion confined to Trump?
It is now a standard Democratic talking point that Vladimir Putin is trying to rig/warp/undermine the election for Trump by turning over to WikiLeaks hacked DNC and Podesta e-mails. Hillary, at the recent Al Smith dinner, pointed to Trump’s supposed Putin connection by suggesting that Trump reads Russian. When voting fraud is an act of pride rather than criminality, something has gone terribly wrong.
Yet, contrary to Hillary’s debate assertions, there is still no concrete evidence identifying the Russians as the ultimate source of the WikiLeaks, even though they may well be the most likely culprit. And even if it were true, we still don’t know whether Putin is trying to help Trump or just hurt the U.S. in general — in accordance with his serial post-reset angry behavior at Obama (sanctimonious sermons to the Russians without projecting strength is a disastrous combination and has earned the present administration Russian contempt). If Hillary Clinton were to lose the election after an especially catastrophic disclosure from WikiLeaks, we could fairly assume that her supporters — or she herself in 2002 fashion — will cry foul and claim again the election was rigged.
Trump was not quite paranoid in his rants: We cannot remember a chairperson of either political party who was caught boasting to a presidential candidate’s team that she had caught electronic wind of debate questions in advance and would be willing to disclose that fact to the candidate, thus undermining the integrity of the entire debate system. In any other year, the clearly unethical conduct of Donna Brazile (“From time to time I get the questions in advance”) in undermining the debate process would have won far more media outrage than Donald Trump’s rhetorical excesses about rigged elections.
Moreover, the recent disclosures substantiate the perennial right-wing paranoia that the national media are not only biased but also in direct communications with liberal candidates in efforts to warp news stories for the purposes of altering the direction of the election. To take a minor example and an even more minor character: What was disturbing about the confessions of Politico’s Glen Thrush that he was seeking pre-approval from the Clinton campaign for his supposedly disinterested reporting was not just his own confession that he had become a “hack” (“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u”), but rather his own cognizance that becoming a hack was both wrong and therefore apparently should not be disclosed: “Please don’t share or tell anyone. I did this Tell me if I f***end up anything.” The media are not worried about their lack of ethics — they’re just afraid others will glimpse that they have none.
Finally, for years, readers of conservative magazines have read daily fare about voter fraud. John Fund has written an insightful book and many articles not about localized voting criminality but about stealing elections wholesale on a vast scale; he has analyzed in great detail the dangers of widely cited voter-registration and turnout abuse from Texas to Indiana. A national debate has erupted over voter IDs, with the Democratic position being that a voter should not have to show the same identification that he does when charging clothes at Target or Wal-Mart.
Yet when Trump — however crudely, conspiratorially, and inexactly — takes up this theme, what do some conservatives then do? They have in the past printed dire warnings of election theft, without worrying about the concrete consequences — and now they become hysterical when someone agrees with their wolf calls in light of clear evidence of media collusion and Democratic campaign roguery?
All sense of balance and perspective have vanished.
Just last week, we were treated to still more media and establishment contempt for Trump’s crude and obscene hot-mic banter — but strangely just as the “sex poodle” Al Gore and the hugger of reluctant women, plagiarist, and practitioner of racist banter Joe Biden hit the campaign trail to warn us of Trump’s low-rent character and to dream of punching him out. (“No, I wish we were in high school, and I could take him behind the gym,” Biden mused about Trump. “That’s what I wish.”) Imagine a former VP Dick Cheney boasting of a desire to fist-fight the Democratic nominee, or Reince Priebus bragging in e-mails to the Trump campaign that he had prior knowledge of debate questions, or Corey Lewandowsky boasting that he had hired thugs to disrupt Hillary’s campaign rallies. Because there are no such parallels, instead we get psychodramas about a Venezuelan beauty queen.
Inciting violence by the use of inflammatory language used to be something liberals publicly condemned. But now taking Trump out physically is apparently a progressive dream, as Robert De Niro (“I’d like to punch Trump in the face”) earlier had foreshadowed Biden’s dreams of physical assault. Meanwhile, liberals strain to find the right metaphor for Trump — Mussolini and Hitler being the most common — while some conservatives prefer brownshirts or Stalin.
All during this campaign, the NASCAR crowd has been lectured on the dangerous consequences of their ignorance by establishment plagiarists such as Fareed Zakaria, Maureen Dowd, and Doris Kearns Goodwin, by hollow men like John Podesta, sexual scoundrels such as Bill Clinton, and by racist slanderers like Harry Reid — with opportune finger-wagging from the ethically compromised Donna Brazile and fabulists like Brian Williams. Such shrill hypocrisy does not excuse Trump’s transgressions, but it does confirm a general picture that our intellectual and public elite play by different rules from others, and their sanctimoniousness should be ignored.
It also remains a curious artifact of this election that many conservatives are outraged far more by Trump’s obnoxiousness, crudity, and rhetorical excesses than they are by Hillary’s concrete record of premeditated criminality and habitual prevarication — especially given the likelihood that on illegal immigration, defense spending, Obamacare, abortion, the debt, taxes, and regulation, Trump’s published agenda is the far more conservative.

Apparently a vicious, insider liberal establishmentarian poses less threat to the republic that does a more conservative outsider fop